Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Oakham Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Marriages Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Private Bill Petition (Special Report),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill they have made a Special Report, namely:

Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway.

Special Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Nottingham Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

EX-SERVICE WOMEN (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).

Mr. TURNER: I beg to present a petition signed by women employed as clerical workers who have served the State in His Majesty's Forces or in civil
Departments, drawing attention to the fact that those temporary women clerks recently demobilised from or about to be dismissed from Government Departments have only been retained so long because of exceptional efficiency or because they have to maintain dependants, and yet for them there is now no provision for resettlement in those other spheres of professional labour wherein they would be fully maintaining themselves now had it not been for years devoted to the service of the State. The petitioners pray the House to devise means for the immediate relief of their unhappy condition and that of other unemployed women. The petitioners are officials of societies catering for women professional workers, signing on behalf of their members, who number between 400,000 and 500,000 men and women. My prayer is that God may bless all women and help these unemployed women.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Captain BERKELEY: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in the proposed fusion of the East and West Midland regions and the establishment of the headquarters of the new combined area at Birmingham, the staff will be paid on the present Birmingham scale; and whether the staff transferred from Nottingham will be maintained in their existing grades and paid thereafter on the Birmingham scale?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The pay of officers transferred from one town to another for which a different pay scale is in operation is governed by Treasury regulations which are common to the Government service. Under these regulations the staff employed in Birmingham will be paid on the Birmingham scale. Subject to the requirements of the work, the transferred staff will retain their existing grades, and those transferred without change of rank will carry their existing pay or enter at the minimum of the appropriate Birmingham scale, whichever is the higher.

Captain BERKELEY: Is it the fact that the employés of the Nottingham pensions
office have been circularised to say that they may have to forfeit their present grading and enter the Birmingham office at a lower grading, and, if that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that that circular should be withdrawn?

Major TRYON: No, Sir, it will not be withdrawn. It does not seem to be in any way at variance with the answer I have just given.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions what was the number of area offices that the Departmental Committee recommended should be established; how many were set up in the year 1922; how many there are in existence; and how many it is proposed to close at an early date?

Mr. MUIR: 16.
asked the Minister of Pension's what was the original number of area offices and sub-offices regarded as essential for local administration purposes when the new organisation under the War Pensions Act, 1921, was initiated; how many of these offices have been closed altogether, or had their functions curtailed; and what is the number estimated as ultimately necessary for meeting the needs of ex-service men?

Major TRYON: The Departmental Committee did not recommend any particular number of area offices, but merely that the number of local areas for which war pension committees should be appointed should be limited to a maximum of 450. In giving effect to this recommendation, my predecessor has been guided by the advice of a small committee comprising representatives of local committees and ex-service men who had previously served on the Departmental Committee; and, after local representatives had been consulted, 166 area offices and 496 sub-offices were established during the year 1922. With the consistent decline in the volume of the Ministry's work, it has not been found necessary to maintain at the present time more than 161 area offices and 383 sub-offices. The number of offices will only be reduced further as and when the volume of local work clearly ceases to justify the retention of particular offices or sub-offices.

Mr. LANSBURY: 14.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the number of officers at one time in the service of his Department,
and receiving a salary of £250 per annum or above, whose appointments were terminated either because they were in possession of private means or because they refused to disclose their private means; whether the same Regulation applied to regional directors and other principal officers in receipt of a service pension of £800 and more, and, if not, will he state the reason for the differentiation in procedure between officers with £300 a year and more with £800 a year or more?

Major TRYON: The reply to the first part of the question is 20, and to the second part in the affirmative. In the interests of the public service, which must always be the chief consideration, exceptions are necessary in the case of certain officers, in receipt of service pension, who are specially suited to the posts they occupy. I may add that the Lytton Committee approved this principle.

Mr. LANSBURY: Does the Department contend that there are no efficient persons for this work except those who are in receipt of pensions of £800 a year and over?

Major TRYON: It is obvious that no one will contend that that is the case, but it is also true that constantly to change men who have been selected for merit, and who are getting accustomed to the work will be greatly to the disadvantage of the pensioners.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the point of the question is not whether certain people have got accustomed to the work, but that he might have found people capable of learning the work and not in receipt of a pension?

Mr. MUIR: asked the Minister of Pensions what is the name and salary of the principal officers in each region other than the regional director; whether some of these officers are permanent civil servants and some temporary civil servants; whether any of the temporary civil servants receive a lower salary than the permanent civil servants doing similar duties; and, if so, will he state the reason for the variation in salary?

Major TRYON: As the answer is a lengthy one, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer:

PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OTHER THAN REGIONAL DIRECTORS.


Region.
Commissioner of Medical Services.
Inclusive Salary.
Regional Awards Officer.
Salary or scale plus bonus.
Regional Finance Officer.
Salary or scale plus bonus.
Regional Organisation Officer.
Inclusive salary.




£

£

£

£


Scotland
Dr. H. Richardson
1,300
Major G. S. M. Hutchinson.
550
J. F. Robband
550
A. Macdonald
635


Northern
Dr. C. R. Stewart
1,300
Captain H. Crisp
550
F. Warburton*
550-20-700.
Capt. O. Jones, M.B.E.
600


North-Western
Dr. A. H. Williams
1,300
W. C. Letts*
550-20-700.
S. Barlow
550
Capt. R. H. Webb
685


Yorkshire
Dr. F. G. McM. Simpson
1,300†
J. P. Sykes, M.B.E.*
550-20-700.
P. G. Grimble*
550-20-700.
J. A. Scougal
635


Wales
Dr. W. B. Edwards, C.B.E.
1,300‡
P. Hogbin
550
P. A. Hirst*
550
G. T. Davies
600


West Midlands
Dr. A. W. Moore, O.B.E.
1,300
H. H. Rix*
550
G. J. N. Rogers*
550
L. W. Keppel
600


East Midlands
Dr. A. B. Ward, D.S.O.
1,300
W. Henderson*
550
W. E. Flint*
550


South-Western
Dr. J. Young
1,300
Captain E. B. Towse
550
F. D. Bickford*
550
A. H. G. Williams
600


London
Dr. F. R. Hill, C.B.E.
1,325
A. C. Dodd*
550-20-700.
S. Aldridge, O.B.E.*
550-20-700.
G. Wills-Taylor
800


Ulster
Dr. A. E. Knight, D.S.O., M.C.
1,200‡
T. W. Casey
440 (inclusive).
A. V. McCullough*
400-15-500.
—
—


Ireland—South
Dr. H. S. Sugars, D.S.O., M.C.
1,125
E. W. Hall*
400-15-500.
Vacant
—
—
—


* Permanent Civil Servants.
† Temporarily Acting as Regional Director.
‡ Also holds the post of Regional Director.

As regards the third part of the question, the hon. Member will observe that the temporary officers receive the same salaries as certain of the permanent civil servants employed on similar duties. The lower rates obtaining in Ireland are due to the smaller volume of work in the two Irish regions.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: 19.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether it is the policy of the Ministry to pursue the principle of amalgamating pensions officers in the County of Durham; and, if so, whether he will consider the question of reimbursing pensioners the extra expense to which they will be put in travelling longer distances for the purpose of interviewing chief area officers?

Major TRYON: The War Pensions Committees concerned have been invited to express their views upon proposals to amalgamate the staffs of certain area offices in Durham County. When replies have been received from the committees the proposals will be further considered, and I can assure the hon. Member that no change will be made which would adversely affect the interest of pensioners. When the staff of two areas is combined one of the area offices becomes a sub-office which is placed in charge of a district officer. The facilities for pensioners to interview a responsible officer are, therefore, not affected.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that, by the amalgamation of these offices, there will not be extra expense involved on the claimant or pensioner?

Major TRYON: No; the substitution of a whole-time sub-office for the area office makes no difference to the men who come to the office because the office in any case is open all the time.

Mr. F. ROBERTS: 22.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can state the reason for the dismissal of Mr. Percy H. Jones from the service of the Ministry of Pensions, Birmingham area; whether the action taken was due to any misunderstanding; and whether, seeing that Jones holds a certificate as to efficiency and good conduct, steps can be taken to ensure early reinstatement?

Major TRYON: Mr. Jones was warned in November last for conduct subversive
of discipline which, notwithstanding that warning, was continued. He was accordingly given one week's notice of the termination of his employment. There was no misunderstanding and I regret I am unable to agree to his reinstatement. Mr. Jones asked urgently for a certificate of service in December last and a testimonial was issued in error by an official unacquainted with all the circumstances.

Mr. ROBERTS: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a copy of the certificate which was issued to this man?

Major TRYON: I do not think I have seen the certificate, but I have informed the House that the certificate was issued in error.

Mr. ROBERTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for a complete return, and give personal investigation to it?

Major TRYON: I shall be glad to inquire into any case to which the hon. Member wishes to call my attention.

Mr. WHITELEY: 24.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the number of established permanent officials of the rank of principal clerk and above employed in each of the following departments at the headquarters of the Ministry: secretariat, awards, local administration, finance (including accounts), issue office, and establishments; and what was the number of officers of similar rank employed in these branches on 1st January, 1919?

Major TRYON: As the answer comprises a number of figures, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The particulars desired are as follow:—



May,
1st Jan.,



1923.
1919.


Secretariat
6
5


Awards
12
5


Local administration
2
1


Finance (including accounts)
15
3


Issue Office
8
1


Establishment
3
1

The principal assistant secretary in charge of establishments and his two assistants and the financial assistant secretary and his two assistants form
part of the secretariat. They have been excluded from the figures shown for the secretariat above, but are included under their respective separate headings. I would call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the earlier figures represent the higher staff employed prior to the general demobilisation of the Forces." In the same period the number of beneficiaries has increased by more than 50 per cent.

Mr. RITSON: 25.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the population of the northern region and the number of cases dealt with in that region are greater than those of the other region in Great Britain in which the duties of regional director and commissioner of medical services are combined; and, if not, will he state why a regional director was recently appointed to the northern region at a salary of £875 per annum?

Major TRYON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I may add that I contemplate increasing the area of responsibility of the regional director of the northern region.

SECRETARIATS.

Mr. LANSBURY: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether secretariats have been introduced by and with the approval of the Treasury as separate divisions of the staff and administration of Government Departments; if so, at what date this decision was reached; is he aware that the introduction of secretariats has had the effect of separating and isolating the heads of technical and administrative divisions from access and responsibility to the permanent and political heads of State Departments; and can he name the Ministries in which this new element has been introduced during the War or later and the numbers and cost of persons employed in purely secretarial work?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): Secretariats form an integral part of the organisation of many Departments, but there has been no such general change as is implied in the second part of the question, and the third and fourth parts do not, therefore, arise.

EX-SERVICE MEN (LIP-READING INSTRUCTION).

Captain BERKELEY: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether lessons in lip-reading are granted as of right to all ex-service men suffering from deafness due to War service; whether he is satisfied that 25 lessons are sufficient to enable unlettered or backward men to acquire proficiency in lip-reading; and whether, if cases can be brought to his notice of men who have been unable to learn lip-reading in the prescribed number of lessons, he will be prepared to increase the number of lessons in such cases?

Major TRYON: Where a man is likely to benefit by it, instruction in lip-reading is provided by my Department. After a certain amount of instruction, proficiency in lip-reading is entirely dependent upon regular practice, and it is the considered opinion of my advisers that a course of 25 lessons affords the man of average intelligence ample opportunity of acquiring the faculty. Experience has shown, however, that the unlettered men of less than normal intelligence is incapable of acquiring facility in the art. I shall be pleased to inquire into any individual cases if the hon. and gallant Member will let me have particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

MOTHERS' PENSIONS.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the operation of Article 23 of the Royal Warrant on Pensions, whereby a pension granted to a mother in respect of her deceased son is cancelled when, on the death of her husband, she marries a second time; and whether, seeing that the basis of the grant to a mother in such circumstances is the contingent legal liability resting upon a son to support his mother and that this liability is unaffected by the death of one husband and the marriage to a second, he will take steps to have the warrant amended so as to make it possible to grant a pension to any woman who has lost a son in the War and is in necessitous circumstances?

Major TRYON: In cases of remarriage, whether of dependants or of widows, a gratuity is awarded to the pensioner in final discharge of the claim. I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion in the last part of the question. Such a course would result in placing the dependant in a better position than the widow.

Major WOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what change has actually taken place in the position of the mother by her marriage to a second husband?

Major TRYON: In the second case she would be married to a man, and in the first case she would not be married.

Major WOOD: Is not the legal liability the same? Does not this contingent liability remain?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider, looking once again into the question whether, if a mother dependent upon a son were, after remarriage, to fall again into necessitous circumstances, her case might be met?

Major TRYON: My right hon. Friend will realise the difficulties, but I will certainly consider that point.

Mr. OLIVER: 12.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of the widowed mother of the late Sergeant Harry Battison, No. 266,580, 1st Sherwoods, Notts and Derby Regiment, whose allowance of 15s. per week has been reduced to 8s. 11d.; on what grounds such reduction has been made; and whether he can take any steps to award more than 8s. 11d. to a mother whose main support has been killed in the War?

Major TRYON: The local pension committee assessed household dependence for separation allowance purposes at 12s. 6d. a week, and this assessment was upheld by the War Office Appeals Committee. When pension was claimed, the dependence of both parents was assessed at 15s. a week. As, however, the father died before pension was granted, the award should clearly have been limited to the mother's share of the dependence, and this has now been done.

Mr. SHORT: 20.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the recent application of Mrs. E. Yates, 3,
New Buildings, Meeting Street, Wednesbury, mother of the late G. H. Yates, No. 407,787, for a pension was refused on the ground that she was not infirm; and whether, seeing that she is nearly 50 years of age, and that she has been unable to secure employment for a period of two years, he will take steps to see that her right to a pension is duly acknowledged?

Major TRYON: The applicant did not claim to satisfy the conditions of incapacity for self support laid down by the Royal Warrant. Indeed, when she applied for pension she was, in fact, in receipt of unemployment benefit. Should, however, the circumstances of the case alter, so as to render her eligible for pension, a renewed application will receive full consideration.

Mr. SHORT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think a mother ought to be compelled to go out to work if she is able before she can establish her right to a pension, and will he go into the matter of general principle?

Major TRYON: No, I think the principle of larger pensions on the ground of need, rather than lower pensions on a flat-rate, is, on the whole, to the advantage of the poorer section of the applicants.

WIDOWS' AND DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many applications for widows' pensions and how many applications for dependants' pensions have been refused owing to the pensioner's death occurring more than seven years after his first removal from duty?

Major TRYON: I regret that the records of my Department do not distinguish between cases in which a pension had to be refused under Article 11 because the death occurred more than seven years after the man's first removal from duty, and other cases of this type. But I may remind the hon. Member of the modified interpretation of the terms of the Article which I announced in my reply to the hon. Member for the Deritend Division of Birmingham (Mr. Smedley Crooke) on the 22nd March. About 30 claims have been made by dependants which were ineligible for pension under the provisions of the Warrant referred to.

Mr. THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that modification is generally known, so that applications may be made under the altered circumstances?

Major TRYON: The modification was published in the Press, as, although we were anxious to give the information to the House, the House was not sitting. Therefore, it was published at once in the Press, and has been several times announced in the House. I will send the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. OLIVER: 11.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the claim of Mrs. A. E. Fortesque, of 2, Thorpe Street, Ilkeston, widow of the late Private Arthur Fortesque, No. 14,443, Grenadier Guards, has been disallowed by the tribunal; that Arthur Fortesque, up to the time of his death, was in receipt of a 40 per cent. disablement pension, and as a result of ailments contracted during War service died in hospital; and, in view of the very unsatisfactory decision, will he cause further inquiries to be made?

Major TRYON: The late soldier did not die of the disease for which he was in receipt of pension, and the Ministry considered that the cause of death was not connected with his active service during the War. The claim to full pension under Article 11 of the Royal Warrant was accordingly rejected, and this decision, having been confirmed by the Tribunal, is final.

Mr. OLIVER: Is the Minister aware that this man had been continuously in receipt of a pension, and was actually sent to hospital on the advice and authority of the military authorities?

Major TRYON: The position is that this man was pensioned for deafness, and died of some quite other illness, and the House will realise that that necessarily did not constitute a claim for pension.

IDENTITY CERTIFICATES.

Mr. PIELOU: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will be prepared to grant authority to local officials of the British Legion to attest pensioners' declaration on identity certificates?

Major TRYON: The list of persons authorised to attest pensioners' declarations
on life certificates has recently been widely extended by the inclusion of members of War Pensions Committees, accredited voluntary workers attached to Committees, and members of my Advisory Committee and of the Standing Joint Committee. I am not prepared to recommend any further additions to the classes of authorised attestors.

Mr. PIELOU: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of the great inconvenience caused to pensioners by the fact that identity life certificates have to be renewed every three months; and will he consider the advisability of extending the period?

Major TRYON: It has been decided, subject to the necessary legislation being secured, to extend the period of validity of pensioners' life certificates from 13 to 26 weeks.

HOME TREATMENT.

Mr. JOHN GUEST: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the number of men in receipt of home treatment without allowances in each region?

Major TRYON: I regret that I have not this information. I may explain that home treatment is ordinarily obtained by the man from his panel practitioner under the National Health Insurance scheme, without the intervention of the Ministry.

Mr. GUEST: 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can furnish any explanation of the reasons why in the northern region, with 48,000 pensions in payment, there are only 186 men in receipt of home treatment with allowances, while in the north-western region, with 95,000 pensions in payment, there are 1,570 men on home treatment with allowances; whether he is aware that the emergency held committee of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem and the British Red Cross Society disbursed over £4,000 in the counties of Northumberland and Durham in the six months ending 31st December, 1922, mainly in grants to men who were totally incapacitated owing to a disability incurred in war service, and who were on home treatment ordered or approved by the Ministry, but who did not receive treatment allowances, and that in many cases the pensions are inadequate
as compensation for the periods of ill-health and loss of work in consequence thereof suffered by the pensioners; and whether he will take steps to ensure that pensioners in the northern region when on home treatment shall receive at least equal consideration to that shown to men in receipt of home treatment in the other regions in Britain?

Major TRYON: The apparent discrepancy referred to by the hon. Member had already been noted. I would, however, remind him that a comparison between regions cannot fairly be made on a percentage basis alone, without regard to such factors as hospital facilities and the various types of disability requiring treatment. I am satisfied from inquiries which have been made that in the northern region treatment allowances are not being wrongfully withheld. If the hon. Member has any evidence to the contrary, I should be glad to have an opportunity of considering it.

Mr. GUEST: Is not the Minister desirous that there should be equal application of the Regulations throughout the whole area, and, as the answer to a question which I put down recently showed grounds for grave suspicion, will the right hon. Gentleman himself institute an inquiry?

Major TRYON: I cannot undertake to make an inquiry, but I am, of course, in entire agreement with the hon. Member that the facilities should be equal. There are curious complications showing that certain illnesses occur more in certain regions than in others, owing to the district to which the troops from those particular regions were sent. It is a very interesting point.

BIRMINGHAM APPEAL TRIBUNAL.

Mr. PIELOU: 10.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of cases brought before the House of Lords Appeal Tribunal, Birmingham, for the six months ending 31st December, 1922, and also for the same period in 1921; and if he will state the result of these appeals?

Colonel GIBBS (Treasurer of the Household): During the six months ending 31st December, 1921, eight tribunals sat at Birmingham. During the six months ending 31st December, 1922, five tribunals sat at that centre. The results of the
sittings during the two periods in question were as follow:—

(1) Six months ending 31st December, 1921: Heard, 2,746; Allowed, 693.
(2) Six months ending 31st December, 1922: Heard, 1,285; Allowed, 312.

REDUCTION (MRS. HODSON, WEDNESBURY).

Mr. SHORT: 13.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mrs. Hodson, of 2, Stafford Street, Wednesbury, has had her pension reduced from 16s. per week to 10s.; whether this is her sole source of income; whether Mrs. Hodson has appeared before any committee respecting this reduction; and, if not, on what evidence has the reduction been made?

Major TRYON: The present award is based upon all the circumstances of the case, as ascertained after local inquiry by an officer of the Ministry. It does not appear that the pensioner has made representations regarding her case to the War Pensions Committee, but I am personally considering the facts of the case.

RING PAPERS.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: 18.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in order to reduce the amount of inconvenience to which men are put by their draft books not being available at Post Offices, he has decided to extend the period for which pensioners ring papers are current; and, if so, will he state when the extended period of issue is likely to be brought into force?

Major TRYON: An extension of the currency of the ring paper would not solve the difficulty which the hon. Member has in mind, but if he alludes to the period of validity of the life certificate, I would refer him to the answer which I have given to-day to the hon. Member for Stourbridge.

ROYAL ENGINEERS (T. W. GORRINGE).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 21.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that a newspaper cutting containing critical remarks against the treatment meted out to ex-soldiers made by Mr. T. W. Gorringe, late corporal, Royal Engineers, No. 57,313, 62, Church Street, Westhoughton, was attached to Gorringe's papers sent to the medical referee in connection with an application for medical treatment; and, seeing that those remarks were made by Gorringe in his
capacity as a member of the Bolton Board of Guardians, and that the man's criticisms of the Pensions Ministry as contained in the Press cutting referred to have militated against his claim for treatment, and that records of his treatment tend to show that this is the case, will he take the necessary steps to prevent an ex-soldier's public statements from being used in evidence for or against his claim for treatment allowance and to deal with the officer guilty of this practice in Gorringe's case?

Major TRYON: My attention was drawn to this incident when it occurred about a year ago, and I have taken steps to prevent any similar occurrence. It is not, however, the fact that the man has been prejudiced; on the contrary his case has been dealt with throughout on its merits and he has received the full benefits to which he is entitled under the Royal Warrant.

Mr. DAVIES: What reason was there for the fixing of a Press cutting, containing a long statement at a public meeting of his medical record, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware of this strange coincidence, that this man's position has been worsened as from the date that Press cutting was attached to his medical certificate, and what action has he taken to the individual who attached this Press cutting to the record?

Major TRYON: The affixing of the Press cutting was entirely contrary to the wishes of my right hon. Friend who was Minister at the time and of myself. Strict orders have been issued that this is not to be done.

Mr. BARKER: Is this officer still in the service of the Ministry? Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to remove a man like that from the service of the Government?

Mr. DAVIES: What has the right hon. Gentleman done to the officer who played that mean trick on this man?

Major TRYON: I must have notice as to what happened to that individual, but strict orders have been issued that this is not to be done, and the hon. Member would be fairer to the Ministry if he realised that we disapprove of this action as much as he does.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fact that the man had his allowance reduced at this
time, and is the right hon. Gentleman going to say he was not worsened directly as the result of this document being attached to his record?

Major TRYON: It is a monstrous charge against the whole medical profession that three doctors will be prejudiced by a Press cutting, which clearly ought not to have been attached.

WIFE'S ALLOWANCE.

Mr. BRIANT: 23.
asked the Minister of Pensions if a soldier who marries whilst on service, but in attendance or resident at a military hospital, is entitled, if subsequently pensioned, to an allowance for his wife?

Major TRYON: The Royal Warrant does not provide for the payment of an allowance in respect of a wife married after the soldier's removal from duty on account of the disability for which he receives pension.

NEED PENSIONS.

Major M. WOOD: 26.
asked the Minister of Pensions why, seeing that the revised scheme for parents' need pensions does not recognise temporary sickness as creating a condition of need entitling a parent to a pension in respect of a deceased son, his Department takes into account in assessing the amount of a parent's pension National Health Insurance benefit, which is by its nature temporary and may be terminated at any moment?

Major TRYON: A need pension is only payable if the claimant is wholly or partly incapable of self support. Temporary incapacity due to temporary illness is not a ground of claim and in such cases the question of taking sickness benefit into account does not arise. Where, however, the incapacity is certified to be reasonably permanent, disablement benefit under the National Health Insurance Acts is normally preceded by a period of sickness benefit, and these benefits being in respect of a permanent condition must be taken into account in computing a parent's income.

Major WOOD: Who certifies that the illness is permanent?

Major TRYON: The authorities concerned in the administration of the Insurance Act.

LABOUR CORPS (P. MOLLOY).

Mr. PARKINSON: 27.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will have inquiries made into the case of P. Molloy, late Labour Corps, of 67, Queen Street, Wigan, whose appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal against a final award was allowed and who is now notified that there are no grounds for further award of pension; if he is aware that this man contracted malaria during his service in the War; that he has been discharged from his last three places of employment on account of suffering from this disease; that he has been compelled to give up his employment as a miner; that he is certified as only fit for work on the surface; and that he has not worked for over two years; and whether, under these circumstances, his claim to a pension will be admitted?

Major TRYON: In the short time available, I have not been able to obtain the papers from the region. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. COLLISON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman do not the many questions addressed to him indicate a spirit of great dissatisfaction with the Pensions Ministry, and do they not also indicate the need for more generous treatment?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR-CYCLE ACCIDENTS (PILLION RIDING).

Mr. BURGESS: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of serious and fatal accidents, respectively, which have occurred during each year since 1919, as a result of riding on the pillions of motor-bicycles?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply to this question. No separate record is kept, either by the Home Office or by my Department, of accidents in which motor-cycles with pillion riders are involved. Although the Minister of Transport is not vested with any legal powers in the matter, it is the practice of my Department to hold informal inquiries and inspections into the circumstances attending all serious road accidents.
There is no evidence, so far as these investigations go, that accidents of the nature referred to are particularly frequent, or show any tendency to increase in number.

MOTOR TRAFFIC (FATAL ACCIDENTS).

Mr. BURGESS: 29.
asked the Home Secretary the number of fatal accidents which have occurred to children under 12 years of age during each year since 1919 as a result of injuries due to motor traffic?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): The returns of street accidents caused by vehicles furnished to the Home Office by police authorities do not give the ages of persons killed or injured. In the Annual Reports of the Registrar-General the numbers of children under 10 years of age whose deaths were due to mechanically-propelled vehicles other than on railways are stated to be as follow:

1919
…
…
…
…
470


1920
…
…
…
…
538


1921
…
…
…
…
530

TRAMCARS (SAFETY REGULATIONS).

Mr. BOWERMAN: 32.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in order to diminish the risk of accident to passengers alighting from or entering tramcars, he will consider the desirability of issuing Regulations whereby fast-running and other vehicles may be prevented from passing the stationary tramcar until after it has resumed its journey?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply to this question. I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply, of which I am sending him a copy, given on the 20th February to a question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for North Camberwell.

Mr. BOWERMAN: Is it not the case that in America, legislation of this kind has been in operation for many years and with very great success; and is there any reason why we in this country should not adopt a similar practice?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although these Regulations have been in force in New York and other parts of America, they have caused extreme inconvenience,
not only to fool passengers but vehicular traffic?

Mr. SHINWELL: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The question must not be debated.

MOTOR-CAR PARKS, LONDON.

Mr. ERSKINE: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in Conduit Street and other thoroughfares in the West End of London the custom of parking motor cars in the centre of the street is causing increased and increasing congestion of the traffic, and that trades-people complain that the obstruction so caused deters potential customers from visiting the shops and business houses in these streets and that loss of trade results; and whether the whole question of the parking of cars may be reconsidered in view of the urgency of the problem?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The object of the parking (namely, to prevent congestion in main thoroughfares) can only be attained by transferring a certain proportion of waiting traffic to streets of less importance. Very few complaints of the nature indicated have been received. The general question of the parking of cars will be considered by the Departmental Committee appointed by the Minister of Transport to examine the whole question of the regulation of hackney vehicles and the parking of vehicles.

POLICE PENSIONERS.

Mr. PETO: 30.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that certain local authorities have in many cases granted no increase of pension under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, and that police pensioners of over 60 are in receipt of pensions of under £31 a year and of over 70 pensions under £40 a year; and whether he can take any steps to obtain relief for these pensioners pending further legislation?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware that a few police authorities have not granted any increase to pensioners who are eligible under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920; but I am advised that the matter is one in which the Act gives them a discretion. The police authorities concerned have on several occasions been asked to reconsider their decision, but as the Act stands there is no further action that I can take.

Mr. PETO: May I have the opportunity of bringing before the Committee set up to consider this question evidence on the cases referred to?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should be glad if my hon. Friend will speak to me on the subject.

Mr. HAYES: In view of the fact that it is owing to the discretionary power given under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, that these injustices are done to the old police pensioners, will the right hon. Gentleman, in the new legislation which we understand is to come before the House, make provision for the compulsory recognition of the needs of these people, and will it be retrospective, and have effect upon the authorities in considering the cases?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot give that pledge off-hand, but I will consider the matter.

CORRESPONDENCE (OPENING WARRANTS).

Mr. PONSONBY: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether the practice of issuing warrants for the opening of all correspondence addressed to certain individuals was introduced during the War; whether in the case of such correspondence warrants are issued for definite periods in each individual case or are of permanent effect; if issued for definite periods, whether these warrants are periodically reconsidered with a view to their possible withdrawal; and how many individuals are now having their correspondence dealt with in this way?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As my hon. Friend stated in reply to the hon. Member for Leith last Thursday, the present practice has been in vogue many years. No warrant has permanent effect. The warrants in force are constantly under review, and are withdrawn when no longer required. It would not be in the public interest to give particulars concerning the warrants in force at any one time.

Mr. PONSONBY: Was it not the former practice to issue a warrant for a particular letter, and not for the whole correspondence?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must have notice of that question.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the practice of giving a general warrant has been in force?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not sure, but I think the system of issuing warrants has been in force for nearly 100 years.

Captain BENN: How long has it been the practice to issue a warrant authorising the opening of all the correspondence addressed to one individual?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. ADAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these warrants are operative as regards a Member of this House?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must ask for notice of a question like that.

DEPORTATIONS TO IRELAND.

Mr. DUNNICO: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Irish deportees brought over to this country are allowed to communicate with their friends before appearing before the Advisory Committee with the object of securing legal advice; whether these persons are informed of the nature and details of the charges they are alleged to be guilty of before their appearance; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the names of the internees appearing before the Advisory Committee, a copy of the charges made against them, and the result of each appeal?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The matters considered by the Committee are questions of fact and not of law, and legal advice is not therefore necessary, but when internees have applied to see a solicitor, they have been allowed to do so. In view of the grave danger which would in many cases ensue to persons giving information, the practice is not to supply interned persons with a formal statement of the evidence against them. If they apply to the Advisory Committee the evidence against them is indicated, as far as possible, when they appear before the Committee, and they are given the fullest opportunity of answering it. The names of the persons who have so far appeared before the Advisory Committee are
Charles Garrety, James Hickey, J. D. McCann, P. J. O'Neill, Mary Finan, Katherine Furlong, and Margaret Leonard. On the advice of the Committee, Katherine Furlong and James Hickey have been released, and Charles Garrety, J. D. McCann, P. J. O'Neill, Mary Finan and Margaret Leonard are being further detained. For the reasons stated above, I am not prepared to make public the information which led to internment in particular cases.

Mr. DUNNICO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these people have been brought before the Advisory Committee and have not been informed of the charges against them; and does he consider it fair that people should be brought over and charged with offences and not be able to answer them?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: They are informed. The Advisory Committee is presided over by an ex-Judge of very high standing, and I am sure that he would not allow anything unfair to be done.

Captain BENN: Did not the right hon. Gentleman undertake that these people should have legal assistance, if they wished it?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have already said that any internee who wishes to see a solicitor is allowed to do so.

Mr. DUNNICO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these people have been taken over from this country and no information has been given to their friends, and they have had no opportunity of obtaining legal advice? I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the adjournment to-night.

Mr. J. JONES: In view of the recent judgment should not the people who are now interned in Ireland be restored to the country of their adoption and birth?

Mr. SPEAKER: That can be discussed to-night.

THEATRES (TOBACCO AND CONFECTIONERY).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 35.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can now see his way to remove the restrictions imposed on the sale of tobacco and chocolates in theatres and elsewhere,
which were imposed in war time in order to restrict the demand for sugar and luxuries?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The exclusion of tobacco and confectionery from the restrictions of the Shops (Early Closing) Acts of 1920 and 1921 would involve amending legislation, which would be controversial and could not be undertaken by the Government at the present time.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these restrictions are very irritating and quite unnecessary, and a source of harm at the present time?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FUND.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 36.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that by a Treasury Minute issued on 20th February, 1891, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the deficiency then existing in the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund was primarily due to the fact that the Government created, and for nearly 50 years administered, this insurance fund without actuarial advice, and that it promised without reserve, benefits upon which the contributors not unreasonably relied; that this faulty Government administration necessitated an advance from the Exchequer to make the fund solvent; and whether, in view of all the circumstances of the case and of the fact that, in December 1919, a strong Viceregal Commission, on which all parties concerned, including the British Government, were represented, unanimously recommended that the Constabulary Force Fund should be wound up, he will consider the propriety of winding up the fund and, if necessary, introduce a Bill for this purpose on the lines suggested in a letter of 8th February 1917, from the All-Ireland Committee of the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensioners' Association or on such other lines as his advisers may suggest?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question.
The answer to the first part is in the affirmative; as regards the second part of the question, it is the case that in 1891 the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked Parliament to vote the sum of £150,000 in aid of the Fund, in order that subscribers' dependants should not be disappointed by receiving smaller benefits than those which they had been led to expect. This grant, which represented the estimated deficiency at that time, was voted by Parliament on the express understanding that if it should prove inadequate a further grant would be made, but that if, on the contrary, it should ultimately prove more than sufficient to enable the Fund to meet its legal liabilities, the surplus should be returned to the Exchequer in reduction of the advance of £150,000. So long as any of the subscribers remain alive it cannot be ascertained whether there will be any surplus ultimately remaining in the Fund when all liabilities are discharged. In reply, therefore, to the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to introduce legislation which could only have the effect of depriving the subscribers' dependants of their legal rights in order to enable the assets of the Fund to be distributed among the members who, under existing enactments, have no legal interest in the assets of the Fund.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in 1919 the Irish Government appointed a Commission, presided over by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, to consider the whole subject, and that the Commission reported unanimously in favour of the winding up of this Fund, and that the Irish Government of the day, of which I happened to be a Member, were prepared to take action on the lines suggested; and will my, hon. Friend reconsider the whole question?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. and learned Friend is not quite accurate. They recommended that the Fund should be wound up as soon as possible, and it is being wound up.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the recommendations of the Commission and the facts of the case, will my hon. Friend promise to reconsider a properly drawn up scheme for winding up this Fund, as was done in the case of the Queen's Jubilee Fund, which was another Royal Irish Constabulary Fund.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In the latter part of his question my hon. and learned Friend refers to a certain letter. I have not been able to trace it yet. Directly it has been traced I shall give my hon. and learned Friend a further reply.

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: In view of the practical unanimity of the subscribers to this Fund, will the Home Secretary take some action to have the Fund wound up, so that the proceeds may be distributed?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have consulted the Treasury about this. It is a very difficult matter. I could not give an answer off hand.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to consider the question just referred to?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes.

WEMBLEY STADIUM (FOOTBALL CUP-TIE).

Mr. MOSLEY: 38.
asked the Home Secretary whether the officer responsible for the police arrangements in connection with the football cup final at Wembley received a letter despatched on 23rd April from the British Empire Exhibition authorities, giving warning of the danger of an attendance exceeding the capacity of the Stadium and asking for a supply of police which, in the opinion of the police authorities, would be adequate to deal with such a situation; if so, whether any reply was sent to this letter; and what action was taken?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understand that a letter to this effect was received by the superintendent of the division. He was in constant touch with the exhibition authorities both before and after the date mentioned, and, as I stated last week, the number of police to be provided was settled in consultation with them and, in addition, a large number was held in reserve.

Mr. MOSLEY: Are we to understand that the number of police supplied was supplied not on the estimate of the exhibition authorities, but on the estimate of the police?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No. You are to understand what I have said in my answer.

Mr. MOSLEY: Is it not a fact that the letter in question asked the police to supply the number of police which was, in the opinion of the police authorities, sufficient to deal with a danger of which they had definite warning beforehand?

Mr. J. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the proportion of the crowd as compared with the number of police, and is he prepared to say who are the authorities responsible for the conditions created at Wembley?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot give those figures off-hand. The police and the authorities at Wembley are considering what precautions are necessary to avoid in future anything of the same kind. As I have said already, the number of police was settled in consultation between the police authorities and the exhibition authorities.

Mr. MOSLEY: Is it not a fact that the exhibition authorities asked the police to supply the number of police which, in their opinion, was necessary to deal with a danger of which they had been warned? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that responsibility or not?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have not seen the letter in question, but I do not see that it makes the slightest difference to what I have said.

Mr. HAYES: Would it not be unreasonable to estimate the number of police required beyond the capacity of the building or premises, for admission to which the public are going to pay, and therefore it is not reasonable if the number seeking admission exceeded by thousands the capacity of the premises that inadequate police arrangement were made, so that no blame attaches either to the police authorities or the Stadium authorities?

Mr. GILBERT: 39.
asked the Home Secretary whether the police supplied to the Stadium at Wembley for the Football Cup Final on 28th April were paid for out of public funds or by the Stadium proprietors; whether the extra police ordered up to deal with the large crowd were paid for by the same authorities; whether the mounted and foot police who were employed at the Stadium and the approaches thereto received any extra
pay or allowances for the strenuous work they performed; and will he state what the amount was?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The exhibition authorities have been charged with the cost of police supplied by arrangement with them for duty at the Stadium, but not with the cost of the additional police held in reserve or those subsequently called in. Men employed beyond their ordinary duty period would receive either "time off" or payment in lieu, and in some cases refreshment allowance under the usual conditions, but no special payment is made in respect of the strenuous nature of the duty. The last part of the question therefore does not arise.

Mr. MOSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it proper to accept responsibility for this matter and not shelter behind the exhibition authorities?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That does not arise out of the: question, but I take full responsibility for what the police have done and I have said already that I believe that they acted with great propriety in the matter.

POLICE (ROAD TRAFFIC CONTROL).

Mr. GILBERT: 40.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Metropolitan Police who control road traffic in the streets of London are specially trained for this work; whether they receive any extra pay or allowances while carrying out these dangerous duties; and whether he will consider if the men employed on this special work shall have, during the hot summer months, more suitable and lighter uniforms?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Constables receive special instruction before being placed on traffic duty in the London streets. They do not receive any extra pay or allowances. The whole of the force are provided with uniform for summer wear, and it is suitable and comfortable for men engaged in traffic control.

COUNTY COURT FEES.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: 41.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to paragraph 41 of the recent Report of the committee to consider
County Court fees, in which they say that substantial fees are payable on investment of sums paid into the County Courts by way of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906; and, having regard to the fact that the committee express it as their opinion that it is unjust that the Court should exact these latter fees, and thereby reduce the compensation which those who have suffered ought to receive, will he adopt the committee's recommendation that when money is paid into Court by an employer he should pay a fee covering the investment, if any, and all subsequent applications for payment out, so that the beneficiaries may obtain the full amount of the compensation awarded them?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Report to which the hon. Member refers is being considered by the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury. In so far as the Committee recommend legislation or alterations in the Fees Order which are dependent upon legislation, steps are being taken to carry out those recommendations by means of provisions in a County Courts Bill which will shortly be presented to Parliament. The Treasury and the Lord Chancellor do not propose to come to a final decision as to the Fees Order recommended by the Committee, or as to any particular items in it, until the County Courts Bill has been considered by Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES.

Sir CYRIL COBB: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether Sections 11 to 16 of the Education Act, 1921, which deal with the submission of schemes by the local education authorities to the Board, are in operation; if so, what action the Board has taken on schemes which were submitted to them by local education authorities during the course of the years 1920 and 1921 and, if no action has been taken by the Board, what steps he proposes to take in the immediate future to give effect to Sections 11 to 16 of the Act?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Edward Wood): I may refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 12th April to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead. There
has been considerable correspondence between the Board and local education authorities upon the details of their schemes, and the absence of statutory approval must not be taken as indicating that many of them are not on sound educational lines. In view, however, of the financial position, the Board have not felt justified in giving their statutory approval to these schemes, which would have made it obligatory upon the authorities to give effect to them and would have committed the Board to aiding the expenditure involved. In the case of a few schemes, they thought it better even to defer their criticisms until the prospect became clearer; but they are now prepared to resume this process in the case of any authority who may desire it, and without prejudice as to the date upon which any such scheme can become operative.

UNIVERSITIES (POWERS AND JURISDICTION).

Mr. F. GRAY: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will initiate legislation conferring upon the Universities of Bristol, Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, and other universities civil and criminal jurisdiction and administrative powers over students, graduates, servants, and citizens in the vicinity to the exclusion of His Majesty's Courts and the local authorities, as now enjoyed by Oxford University?

Mr. WOOD: I do not propose to initiate such legislation.

SCHOOL GARDENING.

Mr. WRIGHT: 44.
asked the President to the Board of Education the number of elementary schools in urban districts and in rural districts, respectively, in England and Wales in which school gardening is taught?

Mr. WOOD: The number of public elementary schools in which gardening was taught in England and Wales during the year ending 31st March, 1922, was as follows: In rural districts in county council areas, 3,976; in all other districts, 1,938; making a total of 5,914.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).

Mr. FOOT: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Education the approximate
number of children holding free places in secondary shools in England and Wales; and how many of these children come from elementary schools?

Mr. WOOD: On the 1st October, 1922, there were 128,194 pupils holding free places within the meaning of the Secondary School Regulations. These free places can only be held by pupils who have attended a public elementary school for at least the two years immediately preceding their admission to the secondary school.

TRAINING COLLEGE STUDENTS.

Mr. FOOT: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has any information showing the approximate number of students who will be leaving the training colleges in July next?

Mr. WOOD: I anticipate that the number of students now in training who will be leaving the training colleges next July is, approximately, 7,760.

DEAF AND DUMB CHILDREN.

Mr. FOOT: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of children in the special schools for teaching the deaf; and if there are any statistics to show the number of deaf children in to country for whom no educational provision is made?

Mr. WOOD: The accommodation in the certified special schools for the deaf is 4,636. The latest returns from local education committees show that there are, approximately, 6,000 deaf and dumb and partially deaf children in the country. On the basis of these figures the provision for such children in special schools is deficient by about 1,400 places.

Mr. FOOT: Is any provision made in the coming year for these unfortunate children, who have just as much claim on us as those who are actually in the schools?

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Where are these children now? Are they outside the scope of the Board altogether, or are they in the ordinary schools with other children?

Mr. WOOD: A great many, the majority—I should like notice of the question before answering definitely—are, I believe, in the ordinary schools. That
is, of course, eminently unsatisfactory, and I hope in the course of this year to get a much larger proportion of them into the special schools.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow education authorities which are willing to provide places to provide them; and will the Board of Education allow a percentage of the cost?

Mr. WOOD: Obviously, I cannot answer a general question like that without notice. If the hon. Member has in his mind any case in which he thinks treatment has been unequal, I shall be pleased to consider it.

Mr. BRIANT: 58.
asked the President of the Board of Education if there has been an alteration in the method of grading special schools by which they are no longer graded in a class but on a numerical basis; if this is so, on what grounds has the grading which was approved by the Burnham Committee been amended; and, considering the special character of the teaching required for the type of scholars attending these schools, if he will consider the restoration of the original grading?

Mr. WOOD: I am not sure that I understand the meaning of the hon. Member's question. The Burnham Committee, in paragraph 7 of their Report, recommended the grading of special schools on a numerical basis, and the Board have not departed from this principle.

COCKERMOUTH (SECONDARY SCHOOL).

Mr. COLLISON: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware of the urgent need in the town of Cockermouth for a secondary school; that over 200 families are compelled to send their children to other towns for such education; that the urban and rural district councils of the town and neighbourhood are anxious that the Cumberland Industrial School, now vacant, should be used for that purpose; and, in view of the urgent need and the available premises, will he consider the granting of such a proposal?

Mr. WOOD: The provision of a secondary school at Cockermouth is primarily a matter for the local education authority for Cumberland. Any specific proposals which they may submit to the Board will be carefully considered.

SCHOOL INSPECTORS (PENSIONS).

Mr. EDE: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has considered the advisability of securing that service as a teacher and as one of His Majesty's inspectors of schools should be regarded as continuous and pensionable for superannuation purposes; and if he is willing to take steps to secure that end?

Mr. WOOD: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a Departmental Committee is at present engaged in reviewing the existing system of superannuation, and pending their Report, I am not in a position to make any statement.

Mr. EDE: Will this matter be brought before the Departmental Committee and their recommendation sought?

Mr. WOOD: Speaking without having had the exact case looked up, I would say that it is quite within their terms of reference, and that it is quite open, if that is so, for anyone to ask them to consider it.

DOMESTIC TRAINING, ECCLESFIELD.

Mr. PALING: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the West Riding County Council Education Committee made application in March, 1921, to be allowed to erect a hut in which to provide instruction in domestic subjects for the senior scholars attending five elementary schools in the Ecclesfield area; that approval was not granted, but that owing to the urgency of the question and the fact that the Ecclesfield Education Sub-committee have continued to press strongly for this provision another application was made in March of this year which has again been refused; and that a hut suitable for this purpose has been stored in the playground of the Ecclesfield council school for nearly two years; and, in view of this fact and the obvious necessity for the provision of such instruction, will he reconsider the whole question and give the necessary approval for the work to proceed?

Mr. WOOD: I will give further consideration to this case on its merits.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

HUNGARY (FINANCIAL SITUATION).

Colonel NEWMAN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the
ties in commerce and sport which existed between the British and Magyar nations before the War, he will use his influence with the nations comprising the greater and lesser entente so that, under the guidance of the League of Nations, the same financial help may be given to Hungary as was lately afforded to Austria with such happy results?

Mr. BALDWIN: His Majesty's Government regard favourably the efforts which are being made to relieve the financial situation of Hungary. The matter is at the moment under the consideration of the Reparation Commission.

REPARATIONS (REPLIES TO GERMAN NOTE).

Mr. LAMBERT: 48.
asked the. Prime Minister whether, as the policy pursued in answering the German Reparation Note indicates a widening divergency between the French and British Governments, he will enter into full and frank negotiations with the French Government, having in view the fact that without Allied solidarity there can be no permanent peace in Europe or Asiatic Turkey?

Mr. BALDWIN: If the right hon. Member will refer to the statement made in another place by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 20th April, he will find that His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the importance of the maintenance of Allied solidarity, on which their present policy is based.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Is it in order to refer in this House to debates in another place?

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not hear the answer. I cannot, therefore, give a ruling on the matter.

Captain BERKELEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether the House will be put in possession of the British reply to the German Note in time for this evening's Debate?

Mr. BALDWIN: No, certainly not.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the recent Note by the German Government on reparations was presented to the Government of the United States of America; and whether His Majesty's Government proposes to exchange views
on that Note with the United States Government as well as the Royal Italian Government?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the last part of the question it is in the negative, the United States Government having made no claim upon Germany for reparations, and there being no indication that to consult them might not merely be a source of embarrassment to them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have the United States Government sent a claim for the cost of the United States Army of Occupation, and, in any case, why do we rule out a friendly nation who might assist us in a difficult situation?

Mr. BALDWIN: According to my recollection, the claim to which the hon. and gallant Member refers is entirely separate from the general question of reparation.

Captain BENN: Is it not a fact that the German suggestion to refer their claim to arbitration originated in the speech of Mr. Hughes?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am not aware of that fact.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he is prepared, on behalf of the British Government, to advise the German Government that, if it is prepared to raise the proposed payments in reparations from £1,500,000,000 to £2,500,000,000, he is willing to use the best offices of this country to persuade France and Belgium to reopen negotiations?

Mr. BALDWIN: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of the reply of His Majesty's Government to the German Note of the 2nd May.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it essential that. His Majesty's Government should state quite clearly the minimum sum which they think that Germany ought to pay, and the maximum sum which it may be said that France ought to demand, so that there will be a reasonable chance of negotiation? In view of the unsatisfactory answer to my question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the first opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment.

MINING SUBSIDENCE (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Major BROWN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the injurious effect upon health and property in many districts due to subsidence caused by mining operations and of the unsatisfactory state of the law in this matter; and whether the Government propose to take any steps to deal with this subject at an early date?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): I have been asked to reply. The Government are fully alive to the importance of this matter, and, as has been stated on several occasions, it has been receiving the earnest consideration of the present Government and of their predecessors for a long time past. The formulation of any satisfactory proposals to alter the present position has presented so many and such serious difficulties that the Government have decided to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commision to make a full examination of the whole subject and to submit proposals.

Mr. LAWSON: In view of the success of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Bill discussed recently, why not ask the House of Lords to introduce another Bill on this subject?

LIQUOR LAWS, UNITED STATES.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the United States, he will state what steps the Government proposes to take to uphold the hitherto universally held doctrine that the jurisdiction of the laws of a nation accompanies her ships into foreign ports, and that the ships are considered as parts of the territory of the nation herself?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Taunton Division.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has it not been held hitherto in international law that the jurisdiction of the laws of a nation accompanies that nation's ships in a foreign port?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member had better put that question on the Paper

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: It is the question on the Paper.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then the hon. and gallant Member had better repeat it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

AIRCRAFT AND ENGINES.

Captain BENN: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether money recently voted for purchasing aircraft and engines will be spent in the purchase of new types of aircraft and engines, or in re-purchasing and re-conditioning old war stock?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): Over 83 per cent. of the total provision for complete machines and engines in the Air Estimates, Vote 3, will be spent on purchases of new types, the balance being for re-conditioning and, to a small extent, for re-purchasing a limited number of older types.

PAY AND EMOLUMENTS.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will take steps to compare from time to time the scale of pay and emoluments paid to members of the Royal Air Force with those paid to employés with similar duties in the large civilian air-transport services?

Sir S. HOARE: The differences in the organisation of a fighting service and a civilian transport company make it difficult to find classes or grades of personnel whose duties can fairly be described as similar. I am having the point investigated, but I can hold out no hope of any useful comparison resulting.

FRANCE AND CZECHASLOVAKIA (AIR CONVENTION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 63.
asked the Secretary for Air whether he has yet seen the text of the recently concluded aviation convention between France and Czechaslovakia; and can he state what steps are being taken to preserve rights on this market to the British aeroplane manufacturers?

Sir S. HOARE: As the Convention has not yet been made public, I am still unable to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman any further information, but if he would repeat his question in three weeks' time, I may then be in a position to answer it.

AERIAL DEFENCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he stated in a speech on 1st May last that, judged by every standard of defence, our Air Force at present was not strong enough; whether this was his view before the present Air Estimates were framed; and what steps he is taking, or has taken, to remedy this state of affairs?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As to the third part of the question, I have included an addition of the equivalent of 18 regular squadrons in the Air Estimates of this year. A subcommittee of the Committee of Imperial Defence is at the present time considering the question of the necessity of further expansion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that with these extra squadrons our position will be safe?

Sir S. HOARE: That is exactly the question which the Sub-Committee of the Council of Imperial Defence are now inquiring into.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman made a statement with some knowledge, surely, in the speech referred to? Will his apprehensions be removed when these extra squadrons are provided?

Mr. LAMBERT: In view of the public interest in the matter, when will the Report of this Committee be published, or when will the House be put in possession of the facts?

Sir S. HOARE: The Committee has already held sixteen meetings, and we are sitting almost daily. Although I cannot be responsible for saying exactly when the Committee will report, yet I can say that there will be no undue delay. The Members of the Committee are anxious to make a Report as soon as possible.

Captain BENN: Is it intended to provide additional squadrons by new Votes of money or by savings on other defence services?

Sir S. HOARE: I could not give an answer until the Committee has reported.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied with the present position of the country with regard to aerial defence; and, if not, has he laid the case for the air before the Committee inquiring into the administration of the fighting services, with the view of obtaining, in national interests, a better distribution of the money allocated for defence purposes?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question of my hon. and gallant Friend is in the negative, and it is on this account that an addition of 18 regular squadrons is included in the Estimates of this year, and the question of the necessity of further expansion is being considered by a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The Sub-Committee has already held many meetings and has devoted its special attention to the position of air defence.

CIVIL AVIATION, GERMANY.

Captain BENN: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what are the international instruments governing the flight of civil aircraft over Germany; if copies are available; and what is the definition of civil machine, both as applied to British and German aircraft?

Sir S. HOARE: I assume that by international instruments the hon. and gallant member refers to conventions or agreements governing the flight of foreign civil aircraft into unoccupied Germany. On this supposition, the answers to the first and second parts of this question are that, so far as Great Britain is concerned, there is at present no permanent convention or agreement of this kind with Germany. Article 5 of the Air Navigation Convention of 1919, as it now stands, prevents the conclusion of any such agreement with a State which, like Germany, is not a party to the Convention. An amendment to this Article is under consideration by the contracting countries, but has not yet been ratified by all of them. The present flights of
British aircraft into Germany are being carried out under a temporary and provisional arrangement, for which it is proposed to substitute a detailed air traffic agreement as soon as the amendment to the Article referred to above has been ratified.
As regards the last part of the question, a civil machine is defined, so far as British aircraft entering Germany are concerned, as one designed for commercial use only, and not of a military type. As regards German aircraft, civil machines must conform to certain rules laid down by the Allied Powers in regard to power, ceiling, speed, fuel capacity, useful load and other matters.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SITTINGS).

Mr. PENNY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to appoint a Select Committee this Session to inquire into the question of an alteration in the periods of the year at which the House of Commons usually meets and adjourns and also as to the hours of the sittings of the House?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

FORESTRY UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS (SCOTLAND).

Mr. MACPHERSON: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the necessary authorisation has not been received to make payments for work done under the forestry unemployment grants scheme in Scotland; and, as this is causing inconvenience, will he have the authorisation issued at once?

Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): I have been asked to reply to this question. Payment of the grants referred to is subject to legislation. The Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Bill containing the necessary provision was read a Second time on the 7th instant.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE PROPERTY.

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is
aware that the Royal Commission on Income Tax reported in 1920 that a reassessment of the whole country at one and the same time under present conditions would be impossible, and recommended either that the next revaluation should be spread over a period of five years and thereafter to reassess one-fifth of the country or one-fifth of each district in each succeeding year, or else that a valuation roll should be prepared which would provide the material for a reassessment in any year in which it was required; and, in view of this recommendation, is it the intention to modify in one shape or another the conditions and period under which the reassessment of lands and houses is about, to be made.

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend has correctly represented the recommendation which the Royal Commission on the Income Tax made in this matter. The Commission thought that a general re-assessment was impracticable in the conditions of March, 1920, not in the conditions of to-day. After referring to the two alternative schemes alluded to by my hon. and gallant Friend, they recommended that a valuation roll should be compiled for Income Tax purposes and kept continuously up to date. When the general re-assessment was under consideration last year, it was found that if the work was spread over two years (as was in fact provided by Section 32 of the Finance Act, 1922) no insuperable practical difficulty would arise. The adoption of the plan of the Royal Commission for subsequent continuous revision remains for consideration on a future occasion.

Colonel NEWMAN: Does that mean that the Government at the present moment are throwing over the recommendations of the Royal Commission on this point?

Mr. BALDWIN: My hon. and gallant Friend may remember that a very large number of recommendations were made by the Royal Commission. Some are being put into effect each year and that process will continue for some time. That cannot be described as throwing them over.

Major PAGET: (by Private Notice)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the uncertainty and
difficulty arising with regard to the new assessments for Income Tax Schedule A he will issue clear instructions that the notices shall be served on the owner or his agent as well as on the tenant and that the owner shall be allowed by his agent to appeal against the assessments?

Mr. BALDWIN: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I would refer him to a reply which was given yesterday to the hon. Member for North-East Leeds (Major Birchall). I am sending him a copy of that reply. As regards the latter part, the Inland Revenue authorities will offer no objection whatever to an appeal against an assessment being made by an agent of the owner.

Sir J. BUTCHER: How is the owner to know what assessments have been made if he never gets a notice, and, if he does not get a notice, how can he appeal?

Mr. BALDWIN: I should like notice of that question.

LONDON, QUINQUENNIAL VALUATION,

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase in rateable value was shown by the quinquennial valuation of 1920 in London as compared with that made at the previous valuation?

Mr. BALDWIN: The rateable value of the rateable hereditaments in London according to the valuation lists which came into force on the 6th April, 1921, was £47,706,286, being an increase of £3,291,230 over the value shown in the lists which came into force on 6th April, 1916. The increase shown by the lists of 1916 as compared with the lists of 1911 was £314,039.

BUSINESS FIRMS (TAXATION).

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take as to those of his tax officers who require payment of taxes from business firms, the latter having reclaim amounts of a larger sum still outstanding and due to them; and whether the business methods of pro-contra will be also applied to this Department?

Mr. BALDWIN: If on payment of any Inland Revenue tax becoming due the taxpayer can establish a title to repayment from that Department, the Board of Inland Revenue would consider a request that the tax due, or an appropriate part thereof, should be satisfied out of the amount repayable. If my hon. Friend has ally case of this cahracter in mind, I shall be pleased to bring it to the notice of the Inland Revenue on his giving me the necessary particulars.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: 77.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in proposed legislation in relation to Income Tax, he will consider the advisability of the abolition, so far as possible, of estimated and average basis, and the substitution of a basis of the actual income for the preceding year?

Mr. BALDWIN: The abolition of the average basis in favour of the preceding year basis for purposes of assessment under Schedule D, is among the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax which still remain to be dealt with. I am well aware that advantages attach to this proposal, but the present is not an opportune moment for preparing this reform.

Mr. F. GRAY: 78.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in any proposed legislation affecting Income Tax and Super-tax, he will consider the advisability of making provision whereby only one return form, issued by the inspector of taxes, of all income shall replace the present system of many returns from different addresses in respect of different items of income, such returns in appropriate cases being transmitted after noting by the inspector of taxes to the Super-tax Department?

Mr. BALDWIN: The issue of more than one return form to particular taxpayers is a necessary corollary of the present system of Income Tax administration, but certain recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax, if ultimately adopted by Parliament, will considerably restrict the issue of forms.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARREST OF BRITISH TRAWLERS

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information about the reported arrest of the Bull trawler "Lord Astor" while fishing off the Murmansk coast; whether there is any British representative in the district or at Archangel; and whether he will give directions for legal and other assistance to be given to the master and crew?

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: (by Private Notice)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is the fact that the Hull trawler "Lord Astor" has been captured outside the three mile limit, and detained together with 13 hands by the Russian authorities, and what action His Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter, and further, whether H.M.S. "Harebell" has been ordered to proceed to the Russian coast in order to protect British fishermen, and whether the officer commanding has received orders to open fire on any Russian ship which interferes with British ships in extraterritorial waters?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I point out that I gave notice of another question on this matter? Is it a fact that this Russian pirate gunboat pursued two other British trawlers, as well as the one captured?

Mr. McNEILL: I received no notice of the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee). I will answer the other two questions together. His Majesty's Government understand that the "Lord Astor" was captured by a Russian gunboat at 9.30 a.m. on the 7th May, while fishing ten miles off Teriberski on the Murman coast. There is no British representative in the district or at Archangel, but the British Agent at Moscow has been instructed to endeavour to obtain confirmation of the report, when he will enter a strong protest and demand the immediate and unconditional release of the vessel and her crew, and the repatriation of the latter. The provision of legal assistance can, as in previous cases, best be arranged by the owners of the vessel; the British Agent will, of course, furnish
such general assistance as may be in his power H.M.S. "Harebell" is now on her way to take up fishery protection duties in these waters in relief of H.M.S. "Godetia." Her orders are to prevent interference with British vessels outside the three-mile limit, using force if necessary.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: No more War!

Mr. LANSBURY: Why do you not send the Fleet to New York? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: rose—

Mr. LANSBURY: You are a lot of cowards. You are afraid of America—[An HON. MEMBER: "Go and join the Soviet"]

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must allow other hon. Members to be heard.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask, as there is now railway communication between Petrograd and Murmansk will the right hon. Gentleman send our Consul at Petrograd, to see that these men are properly treated, and to find some means of helping them in their trouble?

Captain A. EVANS: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, will he assure the House that, if the reply from the Soviet authorities be unsatisfactory, every representative of the Soviet Government in this country, official and unofficial, will be immediately expelled?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is an entirely hypothetical question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. My question was not hypothetical, and it was interfered with by the question of the hon. and gallant Member for East Leicester (Captain A. Evans), whose part in the affair I do not understand.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will come to the point, and put his question again.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will repeat it. Will the hon. Gentleman send instructions to our Consul at Petrograd, as there is now communication with Murmansk, to send a representative
to see to the treatment of these men, which I think is the most practical way of helping them immediately?

Mr. McNEILL: I can understand and sympathise with the indignation of the hon. and gallant Member. I cannot state at the moment what steps we can take, but we shall do everything possible to preserve the rights of these men.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: On a point of Order. I gave notice of a question to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, which you, Mr. Speaker, returned to me, on the ground that two other questions had been asked on the same subject. But in my question I asked an entirely separate point, as to whether two other trawlers had also been pursued, and the hon. Member said that, as he had not had notice, he was unable to give the information. I wish to ask whether I was not entitled to put that question, in view of the fact that it raised an entirely different point.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is quite true.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member's notice reached me extremely late, and apparently it did not reach the Minister at all. I already had two questions raising the same matter, and really the subject can be raised in the course of the Debate to-day on the Foreign Office Vote.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I sent the notice, and know that it was delivered before twelve o'clock, both to the Foreign Office and to your house, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will raise it later in the day.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I endeavoured to put a question on two or three different occasions, but gave way because of points of Order. Am I now in order in asking the hon. Member representing the Foreign Office whether any international agreement exists with regard to the mileage limits in the region where this ship has or these ships have been captured, and, if not, how is it possible to establish international fishing agreements, unless our negotiations are continued?

Mr. McNEILL: As far as I am aware, without having had notice, there is no
international agreement except the ordinary international law which establishes as a minimum the three miles limit.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now discuss the matter. It can be discussed in the Debate on the Foreign Office Vote.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH NOTE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Debate on Tuesday next, he will cancel the fourth paragraph in the covering despatch from Lord Curzon to Mr. Hodgson in Moscow contained in Cmd. 1869 and instruct Mr. Hodgson not to move his staff without further orders from London?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer is in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that answer with the pledge given that this House should be consulted before any action was taken?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOSS OF S.S. "OKARA."

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: (by Private Notice)
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any further information regarding the sinking of the British India Company's s.s. "Okara," reported in the Press as having been lost with all hands; when this ship was last inspected, and if he is aware that letters written in the beginning of March by officers, have been received in this country declaring that the ship was in an unseaworthy condition; if some of the plates were only one-eighth of an inch in thickness, if holes could be knocked in them with a hammer, and if the lifeboats at boat station drill filled up with sea water; and if he will have a searching examination made into these allegations?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): No further information about the sinking of the "Okara" has yet been received by the Board of Trade beyond what appears in the Press telegrams. If the hon. Member will forward to me the information he has received, I will have the matter looked into.

Mr. HARDIE: What is the system the Board of Trade adopts in order to know the thickness of a plate in reality, as against the corrosion?

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I have an answer to that part of my question where I asked when this ship was last inspected?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: As far as I can understand from the records, it has not been inspected for many years, and it is many years since this ship sailed in home waters.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Does that mean that a ship sailing under the British Flag, with British citizens on board, has not been inspected for many years by any authority, either Indian or home?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Obviously, it has not been inspected by the home authorities, because it has not been home for many years.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is there any authority in India examining these British vessels engaged in coastal traffic?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will, perhaps, put that question down for Monday. It cannot be answered without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AUSTRALIA (ARTHUR SULLIVAN, EMIGRANT).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: (by Private Notice)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any further information in relation to the case of the boy Arthur Sullivan, who, it was asserted, had been badly treated in South Australia, and whether in view of the great anxiety which must be felt by the parents of boys in this country who have migrated, he is in a position to either affirm or refute the statements which have been made?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: The Australian authorities in London have received a cable on this subject from the Government of South Australia, a copy of which has been forwarded to me. I think I cannot do better than to read this telegram to the House:
"Copy of Cablegram Received from the South Australian Government, dated 9th May, 1923.
Referring to your telegram of the 8th Farm Apprentice Sullivan—allegations
entirely without foundation. Only 2 communications received from him since his arrival in both instances he professed complete satisfaction and happiness. He has been person ally written to on 8 separate occasions by the Immigration Officer. Sullivan is far from satisfactory has had 3 positions in 10 months. The Boy Welfare Committee of Loxton reported in March that they were unable to arrange his transfer locally owing to unsatisfactory work. Boys are always invited to make complaint to the Immigration Department. The scheme generally is a great success.
I will consider, in consultation with the Oversea Settlement Committee and the Australian authorities, what further action is necessary in this particular case.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Business is to be taken next week?

Mr. BALDWIN: The business will be as follows:
Monday: Finance Bill—Second Reading.
Tuesday: Supply—Foreign Office Vote.
Wednesday: Industrial Assurance Bill [Lords]—Report and Third Reading. Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords]—Second Reading. Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [Lords]—Second Reading.
Thursday: Adjournment, for Whitsuntide, until Tuesday, 29th May.
The House will meet on Thursday, 17th May, at Eleven o'clock.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE) BILL,

"to amend the Law relating to separation and maintenance orders," presented by Sir ROBERT NEWMAN; supported by Mrs. Wintringham, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Gerald Hurst, Mr. Sexton, and Lieut.-Colonel Dalrymple White, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

BROMBOROUGH DOCK BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the table, and to be printed.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. TURTON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Hodge to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Explosives Bill [Lords] and the Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Sir Joseph Hood.

Report to lie upon the Table.

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[6TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1923–24.

CLASS II.

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £113,707, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, including the News Department."—[NOTE: £90,000 has been voted on account.]

SAAR VALLEY AND RUHR DISTRICT.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I rise to call the attention of the Committee to a very grave and urgent matter connected with the government of the Saar area. We have had many Debates recently on the subject of the Ruhr, but little public attention has been directed to what has been occurring in the Saar Valley. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that last month the Government sent the Minister of Education as their representative to attend the Council of the League of Nations at Geneva, and, in the course of the discussions of the Council, there was raised a very serious question as to a decree which had been recently promulgated in the Saar area. If I may quote a single sentence from the criticism passed on that decree by another member—not the Minister of Education—of the Council of the League of Nations when it came before them last month, the Committee will see that the view that this is a very grave matter is shared in other quarters besides our own country. Mr. Branting, who is the Swedish representative acting on the Council of the League, and who is well known, having been Prime Minister of Sweden, said in relation to this matter:
This provisional decree authorised the severest penalties for acts which are not
punishable at all, or are considered merely as insignificant misdemeanours in any other country.
He added:
I must frankly record the unfavourable impression caused by the fact that it has been considered necessary to establish in a district administered by the League of Nations a régime only justifiable in time of war.
When this matter was first raised at Question Time, some week or two ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then leading the House, pointed out that when the Foreign Office Vote came to be put down it would be a convenient opportunity to get an explanation from the Minister who represented the Government at Geneva. Perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I remind them how this basin of the Saar is dealt with under the Treaty of Versailles. This, of course, as the Committee knows, is a densely populated area of Germany. I think it is about 40 miles each way and contains a population of something like 700,000 people, the Saar being the river which runs through it. There is no ground for saying that the area of the Saar is an area which is not in every sense German. The case is not in the least like that of Alsace, where there were associations and sympathies on the side of the French of the strongest kind. The only reason why the Treaty of Versailles dealt specially with this German area at all was—and it so states in the Treaty—that the possession of the coal mines in the Saar area was given by the Treaty to France for 15 years as compensation for the fearful destruction of the coal mines in the North of France and as part payment towards the reparations which were due from Germany. The Committee will observe that, while the mines in the Saar Basin are thus for 15 years put in the hands of France, the area in question is not itself even temporarily annexed to France.
The Government of the territory was put in the hands of the League of Nations, and put in the hands of the League of Nations as trustee. The word "trustee" occurs in the Treaty. It is obvious to the Committee that in a case where the Government of an area is put, by the Treaty of Versailles, in the hands of the League of Nations, as trustee of all concerned, it is a matter of the very greatest importance that we should see, as well
as the other Governments concerned, that the laws which are made for that area and are applied in that area are laws which can be justified and which are calculated to operate fairly. At the end of 15 years from the coming into force of the Treaty—that is to say in the year 1935—the provision is that the German population of this crowded area are to choose their future government by a plébiscite, and they are to have a choice between three alternatives. When 1935 comes, they may vote for the continuance of this government under the League of Nations which now exists, or they may vote for government by France, or they may vote for government by Germany. The Committee will therefore see that the position of the League in relation to the inhabitants of the Saar is difficult enough in any case, for the League is marked out by the Treaty as a possible future rival for the government of the area. It is, therefore, vital that the League should not be discredited in the view of those principally concerned, or be found to be acting in a way which is calculated to be oppressive on the one side or biassed towards the other.
What in the meantime is the government of this area under the League of Nations? The Treaty provides that this Saar area is for the time being to be governed by a Commission representing the League of Nations, and consisting, I believe, of five members. One of those members is a Frenchman; one of them is a native inhabitant of the Saar who is not a Frenchman; and the other three members are to be foreigners, members of other countries than either France or Germany. The actual constitution of the Commission, as I understand, is as follows. The Frenchman is a gentleman named M. Rault, who was formerly Prefect of Lyons. He appears to be, and I do not doubt that he is, a patriotic Frenchman. He is not only the French member of the Commission, but he has been—and this becomes important as things have turned out—made Chairman of the Commission. As regards the Saar representative, the story is an unfortunate one. The first representative who was an inhabitant of the Saar—and the Committee will observe that the Saar member is not elected or chosen by the inhabitants of the Saar, but is nominated by the Council of the League—was
a gentleman named Mr. Hecktor. It is sufficient to say about Mr. Hecktor that he was so unfortunate as to be reflected upon by a local newspaper who alleged that he had entered into compromising relations with the French before the Treaty of Versailles was ratified, and that he has failed to recover any damages in a libel action. He has recently announced that he has retired from the Commission on account of his health. He is seeking health elsewhere.
His place has been recently taken, and taken as the result of a vote at Geneva, when the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education was present, by another inhabitant of the Saar, named M. Land. I notice from the report of the proceedings—and this is a matter I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman—that the Minister of Education said that he was unable to vote for M. Land. I think the Committee would like to know what was the information which the Government had about this M. Land, and why it was that the Minister of Education, as representing the Government, felt that he ought to say that he could not support his nomination. All I know about M. Land is that when he acted as a substitute on the Commission he failed to resist the proposal which I am going to ask the Committee to consider and that also, when he was acting-mayor of one of the towns in the Saar area, he was not regarded by the president of the Governing Commission of the Saar as a person whom he would wish to confirm in his office. The remaining members of the Governing Commission are these: there is a Belgian who—I dare say, naturally enough—agrees with the French. There is a Danish gentleman, who, I understand, is a well-known resident in Paris, and who, I believe, has not hitherto found himself differing from the view of the French President. There remains, as the fifth member, a gentleman who is a Canadian, named Mr. Waugh, as to whom my information is that he is a most excellent man and is equally well spoken of both by his colleagues and by the Saar population, whose future so much depends upon the spirit in which this Governing Commission acts.
That being the constitution of the governing body, what is it that has recently happened which justifies my intervention this afternoon? On 7th March
last there was promulgated a decree, called a provisional decree, by this governing Commission of the Saar—which Commission is only executing a trust imposed upon the League of Nations—which I do not hesitate to say is the most astonishing abuse of legislative power that the supporters of the League of Nations could ever have imagined would proceed from a body constituted by the League. I have the actual text of the decree before me, and Article 2 makes this amazing provision—
Persons committing any of the following offences shall be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years and"—
not "or" but "and"—
should the Court so decide to a fine not exceeding 10,000 francs.
It is, I think, symbolic of the way in which the governing Commission has been acting that the fine is in francs, because there was no reason for substituting French for German currency. But since the Commission has undertaken the government of this German area, they have introduced French currency. What are these serious offences which must be punished by five years' imprisonment, and in addition, it may be, fined 10,000 francs? The first is:
If in public or at a meeting a person casts discredit on the Treaty of Peace of Versailles"—
Different opinions have been held of the Treaty of Versailles, or, at any rate, of different portions of it, but I feel quite certain there is nobody in this House who would consider that an offence had been committed because some portion of the Treaty was subject to some sort of criticism—
casts discrediit on the Treaty of the Peace of Versailles.
There are 440 Articles in this Treaty, and by this precious Decree it is to be made a criminal offence punishable with five years' imprisonment to say anything about any of them. In the second place, this Punishment is as follows—
if you insult or traduce the League of Nations, its members or the State signatories of the Treaty of Peace of Versailles, or the Governing Commission or its members, organisations, or officials responsible for the conduct of its administration.
There is a tradition that an ancient Puritan, the Rev. John Bradford, who lived in the time of Edward VI and Queen
Mary, was accustomed, when he saw an unhappy man going to execution, to say: "There but for the grace of God goes John Bradford." I cannot help feeling, as I look around, there must be a good many people in this Chamber, in all quarters, who have offered criticism of the Treaty or its signatories—even distinguished persons who have written articles in the "Daily Telegraph" and other newspapers—who ought in their hearts to echo the sentiment of John Bradford, when they have heard of these penalties being imposed upon those who criticised the League of Nations, and committed the offences catalogued above. There are 52 members of the League of Nations—including Paraguay—and we are told that no criticism is allowed of the—
state signatories of the Treaty of Peace of Versailles or the Governing Commission, its members, organisations, or officials responsible for the conduct of its administration.
When we hear of such penalties being imposed in the Valley of the Saar we must, I think, thank God that we live in a safer and quieter neighbourhood. The next thing that occurs in this precious document is this: The authors of it are not content with imposing these absurd penalties for the ridiculous crimes, but they think it necessary to create a special Court to try and punish offenders. I think if hon. Members will turn to Article 6 they will find this provision:
A special Chamber of the Saarlouis Supreme Court"—

An HON. MEMBER: Star Chamber!

Sir J. SIMON: —
shall be instituted which shall have power to hear and determine finally.
There is no appeal!
Prosecutions for the offences referred to in Articles 1 and 2. This Court shall consist of five members, including the President.
Will the Committee note this?—
They shall be appointed annually by the President of the Governing Commission, on the advice of the member of the Governing Commission responsible for the Department of Justice.
Translating that into plain terms, it means that there is to be a special Court that is to try offenders speaking disrespectfully of the League of Nations, and this Court is to consist of five nominees
of M. Rault, who is to act on the advice of the Danish member, and I would call special attention of the Government to the circumstances that this Court is to be appointed annually. I have hitherto supposed it to be a well-established principle that the superior Courts of the country, entrusted with high powers, should be staffed by judges who cannot be removed if they do not give satisfaction to the people who appointed them. What would happen if it were possible for the Government at this time to deal with the judges of the Court of Appeal? As it is we are living in a country where judges who perform their functions do not require the favour of those who originally nominated them. Here is a case under the League of Nations, acting as a trustee, administering this area, of the issue of a decree which has created a special Court in this amazing manner. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to read a little further: Article 7 says that if the Commission considers it well—
meetings, processions and demonstrations may be prohibited when public feeling is so excited that there may be reasonable grounds for apprehending that language of a nature to constitute an offence under Articles 1 and 2 will be used at such demonstrations.
Just think of that! If a public meeting is so excited that anyone is likely to use language, or to criticise any one of the 52 members of the League of Nations, and if public feeling is such, and so excited, and there take place criticism of any one of the 440 Articles of the Treaty of Versailles—in that event
meetings, processions, demonstrations may be prohibited
under Article 7 of this ridiculous Treaty. The question which I wish to put to the Minister, who has been good enough to say that he will take the opportunity of giving an explanation, is this: First of all, when did the British Government first hear of this? The Decree was made on 7th March. It was communicated to the Secretary-General of the Council of the League of Nations on 9th March. It was put into operation—at it appears to me in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles—on 12th March. I say it was put into operation, so far as I can see, illegally, because the Treaty of Versailles provides that before you change the law in the Valley of the Saar there must, at any rate, be consultation with a body
supposed to represent the inhabitants, and the fact is that there has been no such consultation. My information is that already very serious penalties have been imposed under this Decree. For example, a local newspaper called the "Arbeiterzeitung," which protested against the Decree, was suspended for a fortnight. On 20th March the "Berliner Tageblatt" was prohibited from appearing for four weeks. On 23rd March the well-known illustrated newspaper, "Die Woche," was prohibited for six months. Why? Because it gave some photographs of incidents going on in the Ruhr. On the next day two more papers were suspended for 24 hours for publishing reports of events in the Ruhr. When did the Government learn of this? The second question is: when they did learn about it, what did they do; what steps did they take? I cannot think that the supporters of the League of Nations in this country, or in other countries, would be entirely satisfied if it turned out that nothing was done, after this matter became known, until Mr. Branting, the Swedish representative—after, I believe, the Council of the League was already in Session at Geneva—more than a month afterwards—insisted upon putting this question upon the Agenda. I cannot help believing that it was unfortunate—no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education will explain—that though the rest of the business of the Council was, I understand, conducted in public, the discussion of this matter was held behind closed doors, with the result that we only got information about it at a later date. We should also like to know from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education—and, I may say, we thoroughly appreciate the difficulty of his personal position in going to Geneva and being asked to take the Chair, and having to deal with all sorts of subjects, in all likelihood difficult enough to deal with—I am not making any personal reflection—but we should like to know from the Government what instructions were given to the right hon. Gentleman as to the course that he had to take. If any instructions were given, what was the attitude which the Government desired him to adopt? It may be that it is possible for us to see these instructions, or to learn about them, either now or later, in some publication.
What happened? This is the only other point I wish to make. What happened at Geneva appears to have been this. Mr. Branting called attention to this most astonishing document, and he spoke of it in the way I have already quoted. He summarised it by saying:
According to the decree any criticisms in public of the Treaty of Versailles, either spoken or written, is considered as a gross misdemeanour. This also applies to defamatory language concerning the League of Nations, its members or States signatories of the Peace of Versailles.
The defence to this was that it was desired not to hinder a free vote in the plebiscite of 1935. Note that. In view of this it was thought necessary to punish severely any language calculated to hinder the free exercise of the right to vote in a plebiscite in 12 years' time! Mr. Branting used very strong language in criticism of this matter. He pointed out that the only defence suggested by the President of the Commission, this French gentleman, M. Rault, was that he said: "Oh, well, we have merely drawn this up by analogy to the law which was made in Germany at the time of the very great disturbances after the murder of Herr Rathenau. We have copied it from that." On that I have to say first of all, I think, whether the precedent was good or bad, we are sufficiently deeply concerned as to the independence, the good sense, and sense of justice of the League of Nations everywhere, that my hon. Friends and myself get very small comfort indeed in being told that this matter has been borrowed from a German source. Then Mr. Branting went on to say—and I think hon. Members will agree with this—
I am convinced—and I speak as a man who has had considerable experience and knowledge of popular feeling—that these severe measures which restrict the liberty of the Press and subject will rather increase than relax the tension.
The only explanation offered is this: that, early this year, I think, in January, there was an industrial disturbance in the Saar area, which is a mining area. There was a strike. Such things do happen. But it would be a bad precedent, even if there was a strike, that laws of this sort could possibly be regarded as justified. I would point out this to the Committee—and I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite will agree—that, in origin, that strike
appears to have been an ordinary industrial dispute based on the usual economic controversy. It must be so, because M. Rault, in offering his excuse, said that the strike had occurred and that there had been negotiations between masters and men, and he had hoped and expected that it would be settled by an advance of three francs in the wages of the miners. It may very well be that after the French had gone into the Ruhr, and under the conditions of strong feeling which had been created, the inhabitants of the Saar area and unoccupied Germany had been concerned to maintain this strike, but my submission is that it would be a disastrous course if our own Government were content to accept a decision of this sort inflicting a punishment of this kind merely because an industrial dispute had occurred in that area. The Committee, I think, will wish to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, and, therefore, I do not attempt to summarise the report of his observations at Geneva. I would, however, make this one criticism, that his observations were of a very restrained character. He said that he regarded the decree with some misgivings. I hope very much that, on reflection, the Government will authorise him to use a very much firmer tone about it.
If the right hon. Gentleman is correctly reported, he seems to have said that insofar as the strike was political it required to be dealt with by political measures. I very much hope that is not the opinion of the Government, and I hope my right hon. Friend will have some explanation to give. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman took up the position that even if it were true that the decree had been unanimously passed by all the five members of this Governing Commission, that would be an important fact, because it would show that people here appointed from different points of view were of one mind. I want to ask is the right hon. Gentleman's information that that is not so? Is it not a fact that Mr. Waugh, the Canadian member, opposed and resisted this decree? Is it not his information that there was not unanimity in the support of this ridiculous document? If that is the case, what is it His Majesty's Government are going to do about, it? It is very easy to say, "Well, we have handed its government to the Commission appointed by the
Council of the League of Nations, and there it is, and having appointed these people we have to give them certain latitude and discretion. That is true within a measure, but do I understand that it is within the power of the Council of the League expressly so provided in the Treaty of Versailles that they may alter and revoke the appointment of any member of that Commission at any time? If that is the case, I wish to ask, not from a desire to put the right hon. Gentleman personally into a false position, because I think his difficulties are very great and he deserves our sympathy, but I wish to ask that the Government should tell us now what is the course they propose to adopt on behalf of this country?
The matter becomes all the more important because when the Treaty of Versailles was communicated by those who had framed it to the defeated enemy, and when Germany had raised some criticisms and objections, they were met by a covering letter which I have previously quoted in connection with the Ruhr, which pointed out to the Germans, who thought that the terms were too severe and would not work, that the Treaty was not a document which gave no opportunity for things being put right, and that the League of Nations was put in the forefront as the very body which by the Treaty of Versailles had been created and set up so that it might safeguard the interests of all concerned. I will read one sentence from the governing letter sent to the Germans in 1918 by the Allied and Associated Powers, in answer to the German criticisms:
It is true that the Governing Commission with which the final control rests, will not be directly responsible to a Parliamentary Assembly, but it will be responsible to the League of Nations and not to the French Government. The arrangement made will afford an ample guarantee against the misuse of the power which is entrusted to it; but, in addition, the Governing Commission is required to take the advice of the elected representatives of the district before any change in the laws can be made, or any new tax imposed. The people will live under a Government resident on the spot which will have no occupation and no interest except their welfare.
If you use language like that, it seems that this very remarkable arrangement was imposing upon the inhabitants a provision which has no parallel elsewhere in the Treaty, and I submit to the Committee and to the Government that a very grave
responsibility rests upon His Majesty's Government to see that effective steps are taken to put a stop to what otherwise exposes the League of Nations itself to contempt and derision, and makes it perfecly impossible to appeal to Germany or other people to believe that, by international action of this sort they may find fair treatment as between themselves and others interested.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Edward Wood): While I am not able to assent to every proposition that fell from the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this subject to the attention of the Committee, I may say that, far from desiring to make any complaint either of the fact that he should have brought it before the Committee, or of the manner in which he brought it to our attention, I think he has done a very valuable service in initiating this discussion this afternoon. I hope in the course of the few observations I wish to make to be able to make plain to the Committee why I hold that view. There are two matters which perhaps I may distinguish to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The first was the question of a particular appointment of a particular individual which, as it is a much smaller point, I may get out of the way of our discussion so that we may concentrate upon the broader questions.
Dr. Hector, who had originally been a member of the Governing Commission representing the Saar native inhabitants, had in the circumstances he related, ceased any longer so to act. The question of his successor was therefore brought before the Council. The gentleman nominated or suggested to the Council to fill that vacancy was this gentleman, Mr. Land. I questioned the wisdom of the nomination of Mr. Land on two grounds, firstly, that it appeared to me to be an unreasonable proposal to make to the Council to invite them to assent to a single name when no steps had as yet been possible or at any rate had been taken, to submit other names out of which they might choose what might seem to them the best. I accordingly suggested that the appointment should be delayed for a short time during which inquiries might be made as to the possibility of finding other names from which the Council could then select. The other reason why I was unwilling to support
the nomination of Mr. Land was that I was not satisfied, and I am not satisfied to-day, that he discharged or discharges what I conceive to be the principal functions for which a member of the Governing Commission should exist, namely, the function of being able to act, and being accepted as acting for the population of the Saar as the representative of the interests of the population, that is loyal to the Treaty of Versailles on the Governing Commission. Accordingly, after a rather protracted discussion, I made the position of Great Britain clear as far as I could from what I conceived to be a particular danger into which there was some risk of its falling and that was this:
All these appointments of the members of the Governing Commission come up for review, in February of next year, that is the regular statutory term of their appointment, and it is of course open to the Council at any time, for sufficient cause shown, to terminate the appointment of all or any. But the position I was anxious to safeguard, and did safeguard, was that of the British representative of that day in February next year being placed in a very invidious position, without anything having previously been said, of having to make a special objection to a specific individual of the Governing Commission, and it was for that reason that I pressed to have the appointment, if it was to be made, on a temporary basis so that it might come up for review. On that main point I made it clear to the Council that the liberty of the British representative was safeguarded with regard to this particular appointment, and that whatever might be the view about other appointments this country reserved its liberty to treat this appointment, against which it protested, and for which I refused to vote, as standing on rather an exceptional and peculiar basis.
Now I come to the other question, the more general question, of the policy and the facts relating to the Treaty. The right hon. Gentleman reminded the Committee of the principal provisions of the Peace Treaty, under which the régime in the Saar was established. In short, there were three principal facts, as he said. One was that the Territory, as a whole, was placed under the League of Nations; secondly, in contra-distinction
with the general provisions of the Territory, the mines were handed to France; and, thirdly, that provision was made for a plebiscite in 1935. A priori, it was, of course, I think—and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who was largely responsible for the Treaty, would agree—unlikely that this settlement would work with complete harmony or without friction. A situation that was already difficult—that was necessarily difficult—has been, I have no doubt, immensely complicated by political reactions, as the right hon. Gentleman has hinted, from the Ruhr. That has coincided with a very widespread strike, to which he referred, in which the original economic character had been, according to the view of the Chairman of the Governing Commission, very rapidly submerged by another movement, political rather than economic, not unconnected with the policy of German passive resistance in the Ruhr. Those were the political circumstances in which the Governing Commission—not, indeed, unanimously, but, as I explained, by three votes to one, with one abstention—

Sir J. SIMON: Who abstained?

Mr. WOOD: The Saar member, Monsieur Land, who was then acting, not as a regular member, but as a substitute.

Sir J. SIMON: Was he then a candidate for an Appointed Member?

Mr. WOOD: He was a candidate.

Mr. ASQUITH: I should like to make this quite clear as to who voted.

Mr. WOOD: The other three members were the Chairman, the Belgian, and the Dane. Mr. Waugh the Canadian voted against it, and the Saar member abstained—now, I think, we have them all covered—that is five. The terms of the Decree are, of course, open for public examination, and the right hon. Gentleman has referred us to them. He asked me when information as to the Decree first reached the Foreign Office. I am advised that the first intimation we received here in London was on the 27th March. That was in the shape of a letter from the Chairman of the Governing Commission to the Secretary-General of the League, dated 9th March, and that was then transmitted to us.

Sir J. SIMON: That is the letter which is included with the Decree?

Mr. WOOD: That is the letter covering the Decree, and that was duly transmitted to the different States which are members of the Council. The right hon. Gentleman then asked me what steps the Government thought fit to take about it. The Council was to meet on 10th April. It was, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, postponed at the last moment for a week, at short notice. The steps the Government thought fit to take were at once to give instructions, as soon as they had received the letter and the Decree, and had had time to consider them, to their representative, which happened to be myself, to give me discretion, to bring the matter before the Council. Those instructions, I am afraid, were verbal, and I am not able, therefore, to gratify the curiosity of my right hon. Friend by laying them on the Table. That was what happened. When I got to Geneva, on the first morning of the Council meeting, over which I had the honour to preside, it is quite correct that this matter was added to the Agenda, on the motion of the Swedish representative. It was added on his motion rather than on mine, because, as Acting-Chairman, I thought it quite courteous to invite observations from the members of the Council before I made my own. But, as soon as those were made, I associated myself with them.
Let me turn to the question of the Decree itself, and the action of His Majesty's Government, through me, at Geneva, and the action we propose to take now. First of all, I am advised that from the strictly legal point of view the Governing Commission was not acting beyond its rights in drawing up Articles 2 and 3 for the maintenance of order in the Saar Basin. I do not pretend to be a lawyer, and I should hesitate to challenge legal opinion. I also recognise that legal luminaries do not always have the same opinion, but I was advised, and I am advised, by my legal advisers that the obligation of the Treaty, under Clause 23 of the Saar Annex, which wording, indeed, differs slightly from the wording of the letter which the right hon. Gentleman read at the conclusion of his speech, is as follows:
The laws and regulations in force on 11th November, 1918, in the territory of the Saar Basin shall continue to apply. If, for
general reasons, or to bring these laws into accord with or within the provisions of the present Treaty it is necessary to introduce modifications, those shall be decided on and put into effect after consultation with the elected representatives, etc.
I am advised—whether the advice is firm or not I have no means of knowing, but it was the legal view, that was also taken by other nations, I think I am right in saying, as well as ours—that inasmuch as the Decree does not introduce modifications into any existing law it was not bound to be submitted to the elected representatives of the inhabitants. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Mr. ASQUITH: Was that advice given by the Law Officers of the Crown?

Mr. WOOD: No.

Mr. MOREL: Who were they?

Mr. WOOD: I think the hon. Gentleman knows who they were. [HON. MEMBERS: "Do not give them away!"] That was the legal advice on which, not only Great Britain, but other people acted.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether these were Government lawyers?

Mr. WOOD: The Chairman of the Governing Commission also explained that it was not possible to submit the Decree to the Landesrat before publication, because that body was not sitting at the time, and he was under the impression that he was under no such obligation. In this form, therefore, the Decree was published on, I think, 12th March. It was brought into force on 12th March, and under it certain prosecutions were immediately initiated and taken. I would direct the attention of the Committee to one point that there arose. It has been responsible for some misconception in the public judgment of the exact powers of the Council in this matter. The form in which the Decree was officially brought to the attention of the Council was this. It was not the act of the Council, because it was already in operation. It was not brought before the Council for approval or for confirmation, both of which were unnecessary. Nor, indeed, did Mr. Granting, to whom reference has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, ever do more than call the attention of the Council to the terms of the Decree, and invite observations from the Chairman of the Governing Commission with regard to
them. Mr. Branting, therefore, while not proposing the concellation of the Decree, described it, as indeed did I, as an exceptional measure, and recorded the inevitable impression that it had created in his country, and which, I said, it would create in this country. He and I both questioned whether this was or was not the best method of dealing with the situation.
The Chairman of the Governing Commission, in response to these inquiries, justified a method, admittedly exceptional, by pleading that it was adopted to meet exceptional circumstances. He especially emphasised the dangers that would arise in the Saar territory if the Saar Press, subsidised from Germany, were to be allowed, unrestricted and unhindered, to use its influence to incite the population of the territory to an attitude of hostility towards a settlement of the Treaty of Versailles and the régime that that Treaty had established. That, in substance, was his defence.

AN HON. MEMBER: A very weak one.

Mr. WOOD: In those circumstances, I ask hon. Members to reflect what was to be the action of the Council. I ask them if they can, to put themselves in the position of the Council, having no source of information as to what was actually proceeding in the Saar, but having before them the Chairman of the responsible instrument of Government whom they had established. I do not think it was very likely that the Council, ignoring the considered opinion expressed by the spokesman of its own servant, on whose shoulders lay the entire responsibility of government and public order, would be willing, on that, to reject the advice deliberately tendered by its own servant, and to refuse to support those to whom, in the last resort, it was bound to look to carry on the Government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

5.0 P.M.

Mr. WOOD: I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. Because only an overwhelming case could induce the Council to take that line. Did, in fact, such an overwhelming case exist? I want hon. Members to address their minds to certain considerations that inevitably affected the Council's judgment. One was this to which I have
already referred. The Council could hardly fail to have regard to the deliberate judgment of the man on the spot, which was deliberately tendered with a full knowledge of the situation. It could be argued that the decree would hurt nobody who was not seeking to foment discontent with the régime established by the Treaty of Versailles. It was clearly the duty of the Governing Commissioner to maintain order if such were challenged, it could be argued with great force that it was not less their duty to check those who by speech or writing may be indirectly responsible at an earlier stage for the disturbance. The decree was justified by the Chairman as an adaptation of German law, with the addition of an appeal that did not find a place in the German law. Lastly, and this is an argument that had very great influence with the Council in reply to a question which was asked, the Chairman informed the Council in the course of the discussion that the decree had been approved in general principle by a body known as the Technical Committee, a body which as I understand it consists of eight or 10 of the inhabitants of the population, including workmen, including, I think, a Dean and an architect and all sorts of classes of society. The Chairman told the Council that the decree had received the general approval of that Committee. They had, he said, suggested certain amendments which they proposed to incorporate, but in the main they had accepted the necessity for the decree and they approved the general principle of it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Who appoints that body?

Mr. WOOD: They are appointed by the Governing Commission. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's interruption is less relevant than it would otherwise have been because though I have no official information I have reason to believe that the Chairman of the Governing Commission was misinformed.

Sir J. SIMON: Did the President say that he had heard a rumour to that effect, or did he assert it was a fact?

Mr. WOOD: I have his words here. The actual words of the Chairman were:
It was not correct to say that the whole of public opinion in the Saar did not approve of the attitude adopted by the majority of the Governing Commission. In the decree creating the Advisory Council,
unanimously approved by the Council of the League, it has been decided that, besides the Advisory Council, there should be constituted a Technical Committee whose members should be chosen from among representatives of the population. The decree concerning the maintenance of order which was only provisionally executive, had been submitted to this Committee, which had given its opinion. It will be afterwards submitted to the Landesrat. It was only after those steps had been taken that the Governing Commission would make the decree definitive. The Technical Committee had recognised that extraordinary circumstances rendered the taking of exceptional measures necessary, both in the interests of authority and of the general welfare. It had assented to the publication of the provisional decree, but it had proposed certain amendments which were in conformity with the ideas developed by M. Branting.
I have no means now of knowing the full history of these facts though I hope shortly that the British Government will be in possession of the facts. All that I knew at the meeting when this matter was under discussion was that the responsible Chairman of the Governing Commission made a certain definite statement as to having secured assent to the decree by what are generally accepted as the bonâ-fide representatives of the Saar population. That had considerable influence on the judgment of the Council, of myself and of all the other members of the Council. For these reasons, most of which, and certainly the last, were strong it is quite certain the Council would not order the Governing Commission to withdraw the decree. Such a proposal was never before them. What then should have been the attitude of the representative of this country. I kept throughout this matter in constant communication with M. Branting, and I made no concealment of the fact in public or in private that I disliked the decree as much as he did, but I was not relieved of the obligation to have regard to the German propaganda in the Saar territory, if such in fact, as stated by the Chairman of the Commission, prevailed, and I had no other means of information except through the Chairman of the Commission.
The form of the decree, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, is certainly not one to which we in England are, or have been, or perhaps shall ever be, I hope, easily accustomed. It has never been thought necessary or desirable to impose such penalties on those of us who may have at one time or another criticised this or that provision of the Treaty of Versailles.
But, so far as I know, neither English circumstances nor the strength of public feeling on the question of the Treaty of Versailes have ever been such as to induce in the minds of the British Government any fear that such criticism would lead to public disorder. Therefore any comparison between the circumstances in the Saar and in this country is not wholly conclusive. The question is, ought I at that sitting, and in that set of circumstances, to have gone beyond the proposal that M. Branting, who dislikes the decree as much, although I think not more, than I do, had seen fit to make to the Council, and force a vote upon a proposition to cancel the decree. He had proposed no such method of cancellation. Ought I to have done so? Some hon. Members appear to think that I should. I will give two reasons why I held a different view. The first of the two reasons which weighed with me was, if I had made this proposal, the measure of support I should have obtained in the Council—in view of the explanations given, in view particularly of the statement made by the Chairman and of the opinion of the Technical Committee—I consider would have been very small, and my action, whatever grounds I may have advanced in support of it, would have inevitably appeared to have been induced by reluctance to support the man on the spot in the discharge of a necessarily difficult duty. That position would have been an essentially false one and that I have no desire to adopt. The second reason was more general and more important. It may very well be that a more important matter as affecting economic and social life in the Saar territory will at some time or another claim the attention of the Council. Particular acts of administration are always, in my judgment, secondary to the character of the administration itself. I had felt long before I went to Geneva, I felt at Geneva and I feel not less strongly now that the essential thing in this matter is to maintain in spirit not less than in form the international character of the administrative responsibility for the Saar.
His Majesty's Government have been and are being criticised owing to the share of responsibility which they bear through their membership of the Council of the League, for the Saar administration. They have not and I have no desire on
their behalf to evade that responsibility or to ignore its weight. I am well aware and the Government are well aware, of the uneasiness and anxiety that prevails in this country in regard to the conduct of the administration of the Saar, an uneasiness which is justified by other reports which have reached them. His Majesty's Government feel that the appropriate method of dealing with the question is by an impartial inquiry conducted by the machinery of the League into the question of the general administration of the Saar territory.
The Government accordingly propose to communicate with the Governments of the other States represented on the Council, notably the French Government, in that sense, and they have every hope that the suggestion may meet with their approval and secure their ready co-operation. When His Majesty's Government are apprised of the views of the other States' members of the Council they will be in a position to consider the desirability of instructing the representative of this country to move on these lines at the next meeting of the Council and to suggest an inquiry into the matters which have caused considerable anxiety not only here but elsewhere. It was because I thought at Geneva that it was likely that certain fundamental questions would at an early date have to receive consideration that I was reluctant to take ground on a narrower issue that the majority of the Council could hardly fail to see on the facts before them was false and unsound ground on which to stand.
I have little doubt that I was right, and I have no doubt at all that in similar circumstances I should do the same again. I have not much doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman himself, or any reasonable member of this Committee, had been placed in my position, faced with the necessity of taking a quick decision, having regard to the bigger issues that underlay an isolated act of policy—I have little doubt they would have followed the same course of action. I think that that is all I have to say with regard to the points to which the right hon. Gentleman directed my attention. I hope I have covered them to the best of my ability. It is rather difficult to give a consecutive account of rather inconsecutive discussions, but I have tried as far as I could,
and as frankly as I could, to place the Committee in full possession of the information that was present to my mind, of the action which on that information I took, and the reasons for which I thought, and still think, that that action was justified.

Mr. ASQUITH: I certainly have no intention of saying anything of the nature of censure, or even criticism, upon the action which was taken by the right hon. Gentleman at Geneva. He was, as we all know, placed in a position of extraordinary difficulty, attending that, his first meeting of the Council, as President, sitting in the chair; and I do not think that anyone here, whatever view we may take of the decisions arrived at, can have anything to complain of in regard to his conduct there. Let me, therefore, dissociate myself entirely from any notion that I am criticising the right hon. Gentleman. This, however, is a most serious thing, and it is rendered all the more serious by the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, because it affects the whole prestige and moral authority of the League of Nations as an international institution. Here was a crucial case, but the right hon. Gentleman, very wisely and properly, and obviously speaking in accordance with his own conclusions, has not attempted to say one word in defence of this monstrous and ridiculous decree. One might ransack the annals of the history of the Russian treatment of the question of Poland, without finding worse specimen of despotic legislation, more suppressive of the elementary rights of free citizenship, than is here to be found; and this goes forth to the world with the authority of the league of Nations. I do not believe that there is a man in any quarter of the House who will rise and defend it. It is not only not consonant with British traditions, but is in entire defiance of all the principles which all democratic countries and all free countries have been endeavouring to practise.
Before I come to the action which the Government has taken in the matter, let me point out what the legal constitutional position in the Saar Valley, as determined by the Treaty of Versailles, really is. According to Article 49 of the Treaty:
Germany renounces in favour of the League of Nations, in the capacity of
trustee, the Government of the territory defined above.
Therefore, the League of Nations is the sovereign authority in the Saar Valley, and remains so until the period of 15 years laid down in Article 49 has expired. Now I shall come to the development and elaboration of that in the Annex. Let me read one or two of the most material paragraphs of the Annex. Paragraph 16 says:
The Government of the territory of the Saar Basin shall be entrusted to a Commission representing the League of Nations.
Paragraph 17 goes on to say:
The Governing Commission provided for by paragraph 16 shall consist of five members chosen by the Council of the League of Nations, and will include one citizen of France, one native inhabitant of the Saar Basin, not a citizen of France, and three members belonging to three countries other than France or Germany.
The members of this Commission are the representatives, agents, and servants of the League of Nations. They are nominated by, and derive all their authority from, the League, and the League is responsible to the world at large for acts of theirs which are not repudiated by the Council of the League itself. Let me read further from paragraph 17. It goes on to say:
The members of the Governing Commission shall be appointed for one year, and may be re-appointed. They can be removed by the Council of the League of Nations, which will provide for their replacement.
Therefore, these people are merely agents acting under the instructions of the Council of the League of Nations. I am not going to say anything for the moment about this Decree itself, but only to examine its legal authority; but if it did comply—which it did not—with the conditions laid down for the exercise by the Governing Commission of their purely delegated authority, even so, the Council of the League of Nations would not escape responsibility for its enactment and for its enforcement. I say, however, without any hesitation, that it is not legal. We know now that, at the meeting of the Council, M. Branting and the right hon. Gentleman himself, very properly, asked whether this was the unanimous decision of the Governing Commission, but they received no answer. We now know that it was not.

Mr. WOOD: The Chairman of the Commission, in his reply, used the phrase that it had been passed by a majority.

Mr. ASQUITH: We know what the majority was. They were the French President of the Commission, the Belgian representative—who, in these days, must be regarded as an associate of France—and the Danish representative. The two dissenting members of the Commission were the representative of the Saar—who is not really a representative person—and the only one for whom this Empire is in any way responsible, namely, the Canadian representative. Out of the five members of the Governing Commission, two dissented, of whom one was the representative of the British Empire. Therefore, to start with, there was but a bare majority even of the Governing Commission. That impairs its moral value, but what about the legal position? The right hon. Gentleman, apparently, has some kind of camarilla which advises him in legal matters. I put a question recently, asking whether he was advised by the Law Officers of the Crown. Not at all, and I am not surprised.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He was advised by the advisers of the Foreign Office.

Mr. ASQUITH: Let me now refer to the provisions of paragraph 23 of the Annex, which governs the whole matter. That paragraph says that
If, for general reasons, or to bring these laws and regulations into accord with the provisions of the present Treaty, it is necessary to introduce modifications, these shall be decided upon and put into effect by the Governing Commission after consultation with the elected representatives of the inhabitants in such a manner as the Commission may determine.
That is a condition precedent to the legality of any such changes in the law, and I say that that condition precedent has never been fulfilled. What is the status of the Technical Committee? What authority has it? It is not recognised by the Treaty, but we are told that it repudiated this Decree. It is not an entity which is in any way recognised or acknowledged by the Treaty itself. This Decree is a flagrant illegality. The letter of the 9th March, from the Governing Commission to the L ague of Nations, says this about the Decree:
I feel it my duty to bring to your notice without delay the text of an important Provisional Decree—

Mr. WOOD: Is not that the letter that was sent to the Secretary of the League of Nations? It was not on the 9th March.

Mr. ASQUITH: I am referring to the original letter. It says:
I feel it my duty to bring to your notice without delay the text of an important Provisional Decree which lays down certain measures.… I have the honour to attach the text of this Provisional Decree, which will come into force on March 12th, 1923, and will be submitted"—
not "has been submitted"—
to the elected representatives of the inhabitants at the next session of the Advisory Council.
My right hon. Friend asks, is this a modification? It is not merely a modification, it is a complete reversal of the elementary principles of civil and criminal law as recognised in all democratic countries. If this is not a modification of the law, what is it? I understood my right hon. Friend to say that the body contemplated was not then in session. Why was it not called into session, and why, above all, was this Decree promulgated, put into force, and even executed, before that elementary precedent condition had been complied with? I see that the Solicitor-General is here, and I shall be very glad to have his opinion as a lawyer upon this question. I know his experience too well to have any doubt as to what his answer will be. This, then, was an illegal Decree, which had not the force of law, because it did not comply with the conditions under which alone the Governing Commission could act under the authority of the Treaty of Versailles.
Now let me pass a stage further. I want to say something about the action of His Majesty's Government. The Decree was promulgated on 7th March. On 27th March it reached, through the agency of the Secretary of the League of Nations, the Foreign Office. My right hon. Friend did not go to Geneva until 23rd April.

Mr. WOOD: 14th April.

Mr. ASQUITH: At any rate not for a fortnight after. What instructions had he? The Foreign Office was apprised of it. It had had an opportunity of examining and considering whether it was in conformity with the terms of the Treaty and therefore had the force of law. This is
a matter that affects the British Government very deeply. It affects the League of Nations still more. Here was the Council of the League of Nations about to assemble with the British representative in the Chair. They had ample opportunity of scrutinising and examining the terms of the Decree. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say he was instructed to bring the matter before the League. Is that so?

Mr. WOOD: indicated assent.

Mr. ASQUITH: Why then was he not instructed, as their representative, sitting in the chair of the Council of the League of Nations, to say, "So far as we are concerned we will have no part or lot in it"? Those are the admitted facts. The right hon. Gentleman went there in this very responsible position, carrying upon his shoulders the whole responsibility, so far as this country was concerned, of determining the policy of the League of Nations in the matter, without any authority to raise a distinct, emphatic and irreversible protest against the committal of the League of Nations. That is the matter which concerns the Government, and I must confess myself profoundly dissatisfied with the proposal, if I understand it at all—I do not understand it very clearly—with which the right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech. What is the Government going to do? This I do not hesitate to say. It is far the gravest blow which has been struck at the moral authority of the League of Nations since it was established. It has impaired its prestige and it has enabled the people of Germany to say what we know they are saying. Germany says, "the League of Nations, as at present constituted and worked, is a phantom and a farce and a fraud. It is run by the French and dominated by the French. We should have no real locus standi there if we went there." It makes it difficult for those who are urging, as I am urging and shall continue to urge, that Germany should try to become a member participating in its decisions and jointly responsible with the other nations of the world. An incident of this kind increases immeasurably the difficulties in the way of those who are advocating that course. This is a blot on the escutcheon. I want to see it removed. I am anxious, above all things,
that the League of Nations should become really operative and effective. How is it to be removed?
I think, in the first place, the Council of the League of Nations ought to intimate plainly, either to this Commission or to any Commission which may be put in its place, that legislation of this kind, or indeed any revolutionary change, before it is promulgated should come before the Council and be assented to and ratified by them. The mischief is done. I believe any court acting on ordinary juridical principles would annul the Decree to-morrow and declare it to be ultra vires. It has now been put in force. I dare not go into the Saar myself, because I have been guilty of criticising some of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, and to-day I am criticising the proceedings of the Council of the League of Nations. We are none of us safe, because under the terms of this Decree it does not matter what our nationality is and it does not depend, which is more important, on where the offence was committed. Mr. Branting pointed out with unanswerable force, "I am a Swede in Sweden. I am audacious enough to pass certain adverse comments and criticisms. If I go to the Saar I am subject to five years' imprisonment." I state as a lawyer that under the terms of this Decree there is not a man in this House who is safe. Against whom has he committed the offence? Against the League of Nations. Not against France. I suggest further that at the earliest possible moment His Majesty's Government should take steps to invoke a special meeting of the Council of the League of Nations and upon their authority, backed up by the whole of the British Empire, and I believe by all the free countries of the world, propose that this Decree, which is a fatal smirch so long as it is not wiped out on the authority and reputation of the League, should be rescinded and treated as of no effect until the ordinary securities of civil life and freedom are restored to the inhabitants of the Saar Valley.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman has condemned the terms of this Decree. I shall not make any attempt whatever to defend what appears to me to be an outrage on the part of the Governing Commission of the Saar and a gross misuse of their powers. There is a little exaggeration
in some of the right hon. Gentleman's observations. I mention that not because it invalidates the general line of his argument, but because I think they go a little far. The object of the Decree, utterly misconceived as I think it is, was not to suppress criticism, but to preserve order. It was the very worst way of doing it, but that was the object. To suggest that the right hon. Gentleman would be attacked because of something he has said here is, of course, absurd and does not come within the meaning of the Decree. However, that is detail and I entirely agree that the Decree is utterly indefensible and ought to be withdrawn immediately. I have no doubt at all it is the opinion of my right hon. Friend who attended the Council that the Government should take the earliest possible steps they think are at all within their power to see that it is withdrawn. The right hon. Gentleman who preceded me suggested that an immediate meeting of the Council should be called. I think that is well worthy of consideration, but I am not sure if it were called it ought to be called only for that purpose. I have another suggestion to make in connection with another matter which I am disposed to think there ought to be a meeting called immediately to deal with. I did not think the right hon. Gentleman's other suggestion so good, namely, that every Decree of any importance should be submitted to the Council of the League before it is put in force. I have grave doubts about the Saar experiment altogether. It is outside the Covenant altogether. It is not part or parcel of the Covenant or in accord with the general powers given to the Council or other body of the League under the Covenant. It is one of the exceptional instances of administrative power being given to the organs of the League. I doubt very much whether that is a desirable thing to do. The League is not constituted for administrative action. When I say the League I mean the Council and the Secretariat and the Assembly of the League. They are constituted for consultative and advisory purposes. That is nine-tenths of their duties under the Covenant, if not more. I have been for a long time doubtful whether their constitution is such as to enable them to discharge administrative duties satisfactorily.
Take the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that every Decree ought to be submitted.

Mr. ASQUITH: I did not say that. I said decrees of such a character as this, making fundamental changes in the law.

Lord R. CECIL: This Decree was, I understand, submitted to the League immediately. I understand they sent it to the Secretary-General immediately, two days afterwards and before it had come into force. I do not quarrel with that. I hope the Government will consider carefully whether they ought not to take advantage of any general settlement which may have to be arrived at about the general matter arising out of the Treaty between France and Germany to reconstitute altogether the Government of the Saar on a different basis. I have the greatest doubt whether you will ever make it work thoroughly satisfactorily.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. Will the Noble Lord tell us under what Clause one member of the League is allowed to take military action without consultation with the others?

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Lord R. CECIL: I would answer that question if this were a public meeting in favour of the League of Nations, but I do not see that it has anything to do with this particular question as to the action in the Saar, which is totally apart from the question of military action. This question has an importance beyond its actual character, although its character is very bad. I agree with a great deal that has been said on the opposite side, and I do not understand that the Government disagree with it, as to the actual evil of this particular measure, as to the injury that has been done to the reputation of the League, and as to the actual injustice that may arise, and perhaps has arisen, in consequence of this incident. It is one of the examples of the spirit that has been produced by the recent action in the Ruhr in regard to the whole of European affairs. I feel that we have reached a position of great seriousness. Here you have an action which really is worthy of Prussian militarism at its worst, and I confess that some of the developments
that have recently occurred in the Ruhr—I wish to be quite frank about it—seem to me to belong to the same character. Take the Note that the French Government have recently sent to the German Government. It appears to me to be a deplorable Note, both in tone and in substance.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As to the tone of Notes, I would advise the Noble Lord to draw attention to the Notes of our own Foreign Office first.

Lord R. CECIL: When we are discussing those Notes, no doubt it will be proper for me to deal with them; but I am dealing with a different subject now. I particularly regret, not, perhaps, the adherence to that particular Note of Belgium, but generally the adherence of Belgium to the attitude which the French have taken up. I have noted that attitude with great surprise. The Belgian people owe a great deal to this country and, without dwelling on it, and without desiring to say anything that might be indiscrete, I think it is a matter for the deepest regret that the Belgian Government should have thought it right and necessary to separate itself from this country in this matter. The reason why I regret the action in the Saar and the Ruhr is that I have always been strongly in favour of joint action between this country and France, as long as it could possibly be maintained, and I deeply regret that the French Government have thought it right to separate itself from this country in this way. It is a matter for the profoundest regret, and it brings the whole question into an entirely new phase of seriousness. It is very difficult for an advocate of joint action by the Entente, as far as possible, in carrying out the very difficult Clauses of the Treaty of Versailles, to get up in any assembly and say, after that Note that the French have sent, that it is possible to continue joint action. I cannot help feeling that it throws rather a distressing light on the whole Ruhr enterprise and activity.
I accepted most fully and most completely the French doctrine and the French explanation that the Ruhr action was purely economic in character, and merely for the purpose of obtaining the necessary economic pledges in order to obtain the reparations to which they thought they were entitled. I accepted
that absolutely and with complete sincerity, and I still hope it is true. [Laughter.] I hope hon. Members will agree with me that this is not a matter for party gibing, or for interruptions which may make a speaker say something which he will be sorry for having said on a matter of this seriousness. I thoroughly accepted the French view of the matter, and I still hope it is true, but it does seem to me very difficult to reconcile M. Poincare's latest Note with the conception that the authors really do desire, and that the public opinion, in deference to which it was sent, really do desire, a settlement. There is no attempt to settle. The German offer is, I think, inadequate, but still it does make some proposal and suggestion. The French Government do not say, "We will accept the proposals as far as they go, but we think they ought to go further." There is nothing of that kind. There is complete rejection, out of hand, without any drawback or modification or qualification. That seems to me a very strange policy to pursue, if the real object is to reach a settlement by obtaining, somehow or other, satisfaction for what in the main and in substance I have always regarded as the just claims of France.
I do not quite understand the statement that it is the intention of the French Government to remain in occupation of the Ruhr until payment is made. I do not understand that, if the object is to secure payment. I cannot believe that it is really seriously thought that, under any circumstances, an industrial district like the Ruhr will he as productive if it is occupied by a foreign force or a foreign agency as it would be if it was not so occupied. Forced labour is notoriously unproductive, and anything in the nature of forced labour will always be unproductive. That seems to me the vice of the whole Frence conception. You cannot force a nation to work. You cannot get payment out of Germany unless Germany will work, and unless Germany will do her utmost, and it is very difficult to see how you can expect that Germany will be induced to exert herself to the utmost by procedure such as that which has been undertaken by France. I remember very well talking to a Belgian, just after the War was over. He was speaking of the difficulties in regard to the reconstruction of the country—difficulties which have
been completely overcome—and he said that during the occupation of Belgium by Germany, it became a patriotic duty on the part of Belgians not to work. Patriotic idleness was one of their phrases—very reasonably and very naturally. Patriotic idleness is almost impossible to deal with. The Germans had an enormous force in the occupation of Belgium. They had hundreds of thousands of men there. The whole country was absolutely at their disposal, but they were not able to induce, and they were not able to compel, the Belgians to work. As a matter of fact, habits of idleness were acquired which were serious for the Belgians for a time aft r the restoration of peace. With that example before us, it is almost fatuous to suggest that the French will ever be able to compel the Germans to work by violence.
I should like to put a question which may have been put before. I have, however, been out of the country, so that must be my excuse if I ask something that has already been asked. Who is going to pay for these operations? They are costing the French Government, in the first instance, several hundreds of thousands of pounds, perhaps millions of pounds, every week. Is that to come out of the Reparations Fund? What provision is there in the Treaty which enables that to be charged upon the Reparations Fund I should like to be informed on that matter. If there is no such provision, is it to be paid by the French Government, finally? That is a matter upon which we ought to have a clear view expressed. I should like to know what the Government contemplate under these circumstances. I hold as strongly as anybody in this House that it is unwise for this House to try to take executive action out of the hands of the Government. I have always held that view; I held it in the time of the late Government, and I hold it in the time of the present Government, but I am bound to admit that I am beginning to be rather anxious as to whether a policy which seemed to me a perfectly reasonable policy some months ago, that is, of leaving things to work themselves out, and letting the French find out the error of the policy they are pursuing, is in fact proceeding as satisfactorily as might be hoped. I may be so, I do not know, but it does seem rather difficult to see what is going to be the end of it.
Suppose the Germans give in. Suppose they concede everything that the French ask? Shall we be any further advanced when that happens? It seems to me to be very doubtful. I cannot help feeling that every day things are going worse instead of better. The Saar incident is just the kind of incident which all of us feared. We are going back more and more to an era of violence, and further and further away from the ideas of peace and peaceful reconstruction. If there is to be a real relapse to the methods of violence and to the methods of war, it would be the most terrible tragedy which it is possible to imagine. I had the opportunity, recently, of visiting the United States, and discussing there the question of the restoration of peace and the possibility of American co-operation in this or that way towards that object; but I found on all sides the most universal disbelief in the sincerity of Europe in their desire for peace. I met it at every turn. They said, "You are going on just as you were before the War. You have just the same kind of attitude of mind. You still believe in all the old doctrines of violence and force." I found, also, a great deal of exaggerated belief in the wickedness and in the extraordinary skilfulness of the European diplomats.
6.0 P.M.
And, as an example, I was asked at every single meeting which I attended, either private or public, when I invited questions, what was going to happen in the Ruhr. Why is that allowed to go on? Why does not the League intervene? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I do feel in the circumstances that some action has become necessary or at any rate desirable. I know the immense difficulty; I know the extreme unwisdom of an unofficial Member making suggestions of a detailed character, and I am going merely to put forward a particular suggestion, by way of inquiring from the Government whether they have considered it and think it practicable. It seems to me that, in spite of all that has been said, there is no hope of settling this question except by some method of general international action. I have always held that view and it seems to me that the recent action of the French Government makes so great a change in the situation that the time does appear to have arrived when action
of an international kind might be promoted.
What kind of international action is possible? I do not think that action through the Supreme Council is likely to be of any use. It is very difficult to see how in existing circumstances the reconstitution of another meeting of that Council would be likely to produce any good results. I still think that the League of Nations offers your best help, and I see no reason why, at any rate, the question should not be ventilated in that body. Is is said that the French Government would not agree. That remains to be seen. At any rate, the British Government, as a member of the League, have a very distinct Treaty right, if they choose to exercise it under Article 11. Under that Article they have what is called the friendly right to bring a matter of this kind—I do not think it would be disputed that this matter is of the kind which comes within the terms of that Article—before the notice of the Council or Assembly of the League. That is to say, they have a right to do that without being guilty of an unfriendly act. That is a part of the Treaty of Versailles, on which the French rely in justification of their action. I do not see how any French Government could resent such action as unfriendly, since every member of the League is by their own agreement given this friendly right to act under that Article.
I suggest to the Government that the time has now arrived when they might properly say to the French: "We cannot go on with this. We see the whole structure of Europe being gradually shaken by your action. We see on all sides a recrudescence of the attitude of violence and war. We see enormous dangers, economic as well as political, threatening many States besides those actually affected by your action. We do think that this is a matter of very urgent world importance; we think it impossible to say that it is a matter which the League should not consider. On the contrary, we think that the League ought to consider it. You have taken your own line. We must take ours. You have made a new situation, and we are forced to seek for ourselves a solution of the difficulty. We therefore propose that an immediate meeting of the Council should be summoned—no doubt to consider the Saar question at the same time—and we
shall exercise our right under Article 11 to bring this matter before the Council, and to ask for its discussion and for recommendations for its settlement."
What might happen? It is possible that the French Government would agree; I do not know. In that case I have not myself any doubt that under the machinery of the League this matter could be settled. I believe that you could arrive at a proper figure for the reparations without any great difficulty. I believe that a properly selected Commission could arrange machinery for it, and I believe that in the atmosphere of Geneva they would very soon find a solution. There is this additional advantage. I know that you cannot settle only the question of reparations. You have got to consider the whole question of governmental indebtedness, and that also requires a big international body to settle it, and you have got to deal also—we have all said so in this House—with the apprehensions of the French for their safety. There, again, you want to find internationally some solution which will give the French real security, without the risk of breaking up Europe and the world into alliances which will again threaten the peace of the world. Therefore I believe that if at any rate the French were prepared to co-operate in such a movement you could get a settlement which would be just to everybody, and, so far as I can see, would not be dangerous or disagreeable to the self respect of any of the parties concerned.
It is possible also that the French might refuse to have anything to do with it. When you brought the matter before the Council the French might say, "We object to the Council taking any action. We propose to vote against it, and we ask the others to do the same." Nothing would therefore be done. It is possible under the Constitution for any of the members of the League to prevent action. I feel very strongly that the function of the League is not to impose a settlement but to promote consultation, to exercise advisory and consultative functions, solely to promote a conciliatory spirit of settlement, but not to impose a settlement by force. Therefore, I quite recognise that French development may prevent the League doing anything, except that it cannot prevent the British or any other Government
bringing the matter to the notice of the Council or Assembly and asking for an open discussion, so that every country will be forced to take up their own position before the world, and say what they think. That is a very important advantage which would be gained. If you believe in the League at all, as I do, you must believe in the effect of the public opinion of the world. It is the only effective sanction which it has, and to get that sanction in this matter you have got to bring the matter into the open and have it discussed openly, and to say to each country, "You must take up the attitude which you think is right and in which you believe sufficiently to take full responsibility for it before the public opinion of the world."
I think that that might be done. It must be for the Government to take the responsibility of action of that kind, and I do ask that, before the Debate concludes, we may have some indication of their opinion on the subject. I would ask whether the moment has not now arrived when action of that kind might be taken? I quite admit the difficulty. I quite admit that you are going to put on the League a function of great difficulty, which possibly will strain its vitality, though I do not myself believe it. But you have got to weigh one difficulty and danger against another. Can you afford to allow this sort of thing to go on indefinitely? There must be a moment when the other nations will step in and say, "There must be an end to this." Have we not reached a point when some such action might be taken? I assure my right hon. Friend that I ask these questions in no spirit of hostility, but only with the desire of solving what is a grave European and world problem, and with the hope that it may be possible to take some step towards solving many of the problems in which many of their supporters are only too anxious to give every assistance in their power.

Mr. HERBERT FISHER: The House always listens with great pleasure and respect to the observations which fall from my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) on matters of foreign policy and European peace. We all welcome him back to the House after his tour in America, where he has been doing so much valuable work in the cause which he has so much at heart.
What is peculiarly welcome to me is the discovery that the Noble Lord is now prepared to accept a course which we on these benches pressed on the Government on the Amendment to the Address. At that moment my Noble Friend found himself obliged, for reasons which I did not follow fully, to vote against it. Now he takes the view which we then took, and which I have always taken, that an occasion has arisen, following from the French occupation of the Ruhr, which does imperil European peace, and that if this country is not prepared to exercise its friendly right under Article 11 of the Covenant, to bring the situation before the notice of the Council of the League, then the Covenant of the League becomes indeed a scrap of paper. Whether our action in this matter is acceptable to the French Government or not—and after all no ultimate action can be taken by the Council of the League without unanimity, and France will always be able to block any particular course of which she disapproves—I feel that, if we believe in the League at all, our Government ought to bring the matter of the Ruhr before the consideration of the Council.
Before I pass to the larger considerations opened up in the interesting speech of the Noble Lord, I would like to revert for a moment to the question of the government of the Saar. We are all greatly indebted to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) for having brought this matter to the attention of the House. The administration of the Saar has been for a long time past a cause of anxiety to friends of the League in this country, and a cause of considerable criticism upon the Continent of Europe. I am very much in agreement with some observations which fell from the Noble Lord as to the difficulties of carrying on the administration in the Saar under the League of Nations. I have from time to time been obliged to occupy myself with questions affecting the administration of the Saar, as a British delegate to the Council and the Assembly, and I have always felt that the administration is one which it is very difficult to work. It is very difficult for the British Delegate to have sufficient control over what is being done in the Saar district. He arrives in Geneva. Suddenly he is plunged into a great mass of unfamiliar details. He has to come
to such conclusions as he can. Naturally, he is guided very largely by the expert advice he receives either from the officials of the League or from the administrators in the Saar itself.
I have always felt that the whole question of the administration of the Saar requires to be looked into thoroughly. At the same time it is only fair to those who have borne the burden of administering the Saar district to remember that many of the complaints brought against the administration by the Germans have proved, on examination, to be utterly unfounded. The British Delegation on several occasions has examined the complaints and has found that they are extravagant and flimsy. The administrators of the Saar have some ground for complaint of the manner in which their administration has been criticised by agencies external to the area, with very little interest in the area except the interest of making the task of Government difficult and impracticable. The German critic had several very sound grounds for criticising the administration in the earlier stages of its history. In the first place there were far too many French troops in the area. There was in the area a black regiment, which gave great offence. At the same time many civilians in the Saar were made subject to and brought before military courts and were tried by court-martial in defiance of every sound principle of justice and equity.
The British Delegates more than once raised the question in the Council, and these evils were redressed. The military garrison of the Saar was very largely decreased, the black regiment was withdrawn, and a Decree was issued, exempting civilians from the jurisdiction of military courts, except in cases of espionage. Those were all improvements effected. Last year one of the ablest members of the League Secretariat paid a visit to the Saar, made an exhaustive inquiry, and came to the conclusion that on the whole, the Government was well conducted, and conducted in the interests of the inhabitants. I may say also that an American visitor to the Saar, who actually worked in the mines, and who was perfectly impartial, reported that the miners in the Saar were better satisfied with the French principles of management than they had been with the German principles
of management. It is only fair to mention these facts in order that the House may be in a position to pass an impartial verdict upon the Government as a whole. But it is obvious that the French occupation of the Ruhr, which has exercised so calamitous an influence in so many spheres of public policy, has not been without its ruinous influence on the administration of the Saar. As a consequence we have this Decree, which has been so thoroughly riddled with criticism and contempt by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench.
We have this Decree, which is not law, but opéra bouffe. I shall not waste time by any further criticism of the decree. I hope it will be cancelled at the earliest possible opportunity. I welcome the suggestion which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) that a special meeting of the Council should be summoned to take into consideration the general subject of the administration in the Saar. There are many topics in that connection which deserve to come up for consideration. In the first place, it is unfortunate that the Chairman of the Governing Commission should be a Frenchman. I have nothing personal to say against M. Rault. I understand that he was one of the most distinguished of the French prefects. He had a very special experience in dealing with industrial disputes, was regarded as specially skilled in handling labour problems, and therefore seemed marked out in a special manner to occupy a position in a great industrial district. He is, I believe, genuinely concerned to make his Government popular among the inhabitants of the Saar district, but I think it is unquestioned that the fact of his nationality seriously prejudices the success of his administration. I hope very much that when the time comes for a change our Government will press that the Chairman of the Governing Commission should not be a Frenchman.
Then, again, the Commission as a whole is weakly composed. I had many conversations with M. Leon Bourgeois with regard to one member of the Commission who, by all accounts, is quite unfit for his pest. I had assumed that a change was to be made. No change has been made, and I think that the British Government ought to press for the change to be made
as promptly as possible. Again I think it very important that the Chairman of the League's Commission, whether the Commission at Danzig or that in the Saar, should correspond exclusively with the Council of the League and not correspond officially with his own Government. That sound principle was most loyally carried out by Sir Richard Haking, who was our High Commissioner at Danzig, and whose administration in very difficult circumstances was a most brilliant success. Sir Richard Haking dealt with a number of most delicate and thorny issues between Poland and the free town of Danzig, with great good temper and great good sense, and invariably he conducted his correspondence exclusively with the Council of the League. I am afraid that that principle has not been adopted by M. Rault. We ought to press that the High Commissioner in the Saar should correspond exclusively with the Council of the League, and should regard himself exclusively as the agent of the League, and in no way as an official of the French Republic. Also it is unfortunate that the troops in the Saar District should be contributed by one power only. The French provide the troops. The French War Office decides how many troops are to go into the Saar, whether the regiments are to be white or black, and that impairs the international character of the organisation. All these matters deserve to be reconsidered very carefully.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley has truly pointed out, there is nothing more calculated to injure the reputation of the League of Nations throughout the world than the criticisms, in many cases well founded criticisms, which have been levelled against the administration in the Saar district. If I understand my Noble Friend's proposal aright, he suggests that the Council of the League should meet to consider the reform of the administration in the Saar, and should be invited to consider also the question of the Ruhr. Indeed, the two questions are very closely linked together. It is obvious to everyone that the situation in the Ruhr is gravely prejudicing the tranquillity of the Saar district. My Noble Friend also urged on the Government the desirability of calling this Council as soon as possible. With that proposition I find myself in entire agreement.
My Noble Friend has just come back from America. I have just come back from Germany. I have had an opportunity in Germany of seeing many influential and representative publicists and politicians belonging to different schools of political opinion. What strikes me about the present situation is its extreme danger. I think that it is deteriorating hour by hour. There is a party in Germany, not a formal political party, but a very large body of German people, which takes, what I call, a wrecking view of the situation. They do not want agreement; they do not want a settlement with France; they do not want a settlement on reparations. They want the struggle to go on; they want passive resistance to go on. They say, "Let this go on for a few more months and Germany will be ruined, and Germany will bring down France with her. If this struggle goes on for a few more months there will be no question of reparation, for we shall not be able to pay. Europe and the world will see that we cannot pay." That, I think, is a very dangerous type of opinion. It is a very prevalent type of opinion, and it is strengthened by every untoward and unpleasant incident which occurs in the Ruhr district. That is one very sound reason why we should attempt to settle the reparation question before too much water has flowed under the bridges.
The Germans have made an offer. In its present form it is an unacceptable offer. France certainly could not be expected to accept it in its present form, and she has emphatically rejected it. But there are many features in the German offer which appear to me to deserve serious consideration. It is not an offer which ought to be dropped; it is an offer which ought to be treated as a basis for further negotiation, and ought to be pursued. Let me indicate briefly to the House some of the features in that offer which seems to me to be promising. In the first place, the Germans realise that in the settlement of the Ruhr or reparations questions there ought to be an elastic factor. That is an acknowledgment of value. In the second place, they give us a figure, and at the same time they say that if the figure is thought to be too low they are prepared to submit
the problem to an impartial international commission. In the third place they are prepared to offer guarantees, though they are not at present in a position to specify what guarantees they will offer and, lastly, they are prepared, in what appears to be a reasonable way, to deal with the question of coke and coal.
I earnestly hope His Majesty's Government will not let the German offer drop; that they will indicate to the Germans their wish that further proposals should be made and that they will encourage the Germans to make further proposals, in order that we may see whether we cannot find a way towards a reasonable settlement. I am encouraged in that view because I am convinced that in the German Government there is a genuine desire to settle the question. Do not let the House be misled by those features in the German offer which appear to us and which have appeared to the French to be most unacceptable. We have got to remember that the German Government is a very weak Government. It is a Government which cannot collect taxes, which has no prestige and which is faced with an extremely difficult and angry public opinion. Remember also the fate of Dr. Rathenau. These political leaders of Germany have that fate before them. They require to have police protection. They are not entirely free agents. They have to consider the public opinion of their country just as the French Governmen have got to consider the public opinion of France. From conversations which I have had with the leading men in the German Government I am convinced that as cool-headed business men, they believe it is to the interests of Germany that the question of reparations should be settled as quickly as possible, and they are anxious to make an honest offer, an offer which they can implement and which may be regarded as reasonable by the impartial public opinion of the world. For these reasons, therefore, I trust His Majesty's Government will indicate in some way to the Government of Germany that we hope they will make a more acceptable offer. I know it might be difficult for our Government to indicate in any specific way the proposals which we would regard as acceptable, but let the discussions be continued.
Let me make a further observation. There is undoubtedly in France and in some quarters in Germany a very active public opinion in favour of a revision of the territorial settlements of the Treaty of Versailles. The French profess that they are not content with the security which they receive under that Treaty. They want some further security, and one has only to read the French newspapers regularly to see that a very large body of public opinion is being formed, without any correction from this side of the Channel, in favour of some alteration of the Treaty of Versailles in favour of France. I am against any such alteration at present. I think it would be a great disaster to attempt at this juncture to revise the territorial arrangements of the Treaty of Versailles, and I hope the Government will take that view. What I am suggesting is that His Majesty's Government should take an early opportunity of indicating their views upon this question. I think it is only due to French public opinion and German public opinion that Europe should know where we stand in this matter. Does Great Britain think that France needs more territorial security than is given her under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, or do we think that the territorial securities in the Treaty of Versailles are adequate as they stand? Are we going to revise the terms of that Treaty favourably to France and prejudicially to Germany or not? That I think requires to be stated, and requires to be stated soon. Otherwise the unrest in Europe will gain ground.
I have said everything that is in my mind except one thing. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Education made to the House, as we would expect him to do, a very frank and able statement describing the part which he took at the late meeting of the Council of the League in Geneva. I think we must all sympathise with my right hon. Friend in the very great difficulty in which he found himself. I do not in the least attach any blame to him for what happened. I think he was in a very difficult position, and I think the general view which he took of this absurd Decree is one which we on this side of the House take as well as he does. But, in view of the absurd character of this Decree, it is much to be regretted that my right hon. Friend did not receive more specific instructions from
the Foreign Office with respect to the treatment which that Decree should receive. May I summarise the suggestions which I venture to make to His Majesty's Government? In the first place, I venture to make the suggestion that a meeting of the Council of the League should be summoned for a reconsideration of the whole question of the administration of the Saar and for the repeal of this particular Decree. Secondly, I suggest that the British delegate on that Council should be instructed, in the terms of Article 11 of the Covenant, to bring to the notice of his colleagues on the Council the grave situation in the Ruhr. The third suggestion is that His Majesty's Government should treat the German offer as a serious offer and as a basis for further negotiations; and, lastly, I suggest that His Majesty's Government should take an early opportunity of making manifest to the world the position which they take up with respect to the territorial arrangements under the Treaty of Versailles.

BRITISH TRAWLERS, RUSSIA (PROTECTION).

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I only venture to intervene in this Debate in order to put a supplementary question arising out of a reply given this afternoon by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I do not propose to contribute anything to the Debate which has been going on up to the present, but owing to the importance of the subject dealt with in the reply to which I refer, I venture to crave the indulgence of the Committee while I put a further question to my hon. Friend. To-day, in reply to Private Notice questions, the hon. Gentleman made a statement regarding a gunboat which is being sent to the Murmansk Coast, and I think the tone of the answer and the passion that was aroused on both sides of the House, gave everybody who still hopes, even at the eleventh hour, to maintain peace between ourselves and Russia cause for somewhat grave concern. A conflict with Russia now certainly should not be entered into in a passionate frame of mind. I wish to ask my hon. Friend if new orders have been issued in connection with this matter. I understand that during the last eighteen months or two years a gunboat has been cruising the White Sea for the purpose of protecting our trawlers and policing in our interests, those waters. There is a
very old controversy between Russia and ourselves as to whether the territorial waters of Russia are confined within a three-mile limit or a twelve-mile limit.
We ourselves have had exactly that problem in reference to the Moray Firth. I happen to come from the Moray Firth and, as long as I can remember, casting my mind back to my most youthful years, a controversy has been going on as to whether we could claim the Moray Firth from cape to cape as our territorial waters or whether we had to draw a zig-zag line within that great triangle of waters and confine our territorial authority to the three mile limit. Everybody who knows anything about fishing affairs knows that controversy has been existing for a long time and knows how very difficult it is to solve the question. Russian affairs will be debated at full length on Tuesday and I do not intervene now to raise this general question, but the particular matter with which I wish to deal is of immediate and urgent public importance. If anything happens within the next day or two to make negotiations impossible or peaceful settlement impossible, it will be nothing short of criminal, and if the reply given by the hon. Gentleman, full of the possibility of misapprehension, is allowed to stand without explanation, I think very serious damage will be done. Therefore, my question to him is this. When this gunboat, which is on its way, sailed, had it any orders which the gunboat at present there has not got? When the hon. Gentleman said it was instructed to use force, was this a special instruction or was it just the ordinary instruction which all police boats have when doing their work? I think it is proper to say that we have ventured to appeal to the Russian Government—and when I say "we" I mean the Labour party in this House—to do nothing in connection with this controversy which would precipitate a position which would make continued negotiations impossible, and I hope that a response will be given to that, and that this outstanding difficulty between the three miles limit and the 12 miles limit—surely an awfully insignificant reason for a war—will be postponed until the whole question of our relations in the future can be settled. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could somewhat
amplify his answer and could give us an assurance that the Government is going to keep an open mind and a patient hand until—and I hope this will not happen at all—anything else is forced upon them. If he could give us that assurance, I am sure it would be for the benefit of everybody concerned.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): Perhaps, as the hon. Member has put this question specifically to me as a sort of interlude in the general Debate, I may be allowed to treat it in the same way, and to give an answer simply to it, reserving my right to speak later on. I am glad the hon. Gentleman has put the question to me. He has spoken about the passion that was raised on both sides of the House. I must say I was entirely surprised by the demonstration, either on one side or the other, and I want to give as specific an answer as I can to the very important question put to me. There must be the slightest small element of reserve in my answer, simply because I have not got absolute certainty. The only amount of uncertainty has been raised by the very fact that the hon. Gentleman has put the question, but if it had not been for that, I should have had no uncertainty. Strictly speaking, of course, the question should be put to the Admiralty, but, so far as I am aware, there is nothing new whatever in these instructions, certainly so far as my knowledge at the Foreign Office goes. There is no policy involved, and if there had been I should certainly have known, and my information is—and I am sure that I am right—that what I said with regard to the police boat which has gone to that coast, that her instructions were to protect our vessels outside the three-miles limit, using force if necessary, is the invariable instruction given to vessels upon that sort of service, the case being, of course, that, subject, to what I will say in a moment with regard to what the hon. Gentleman said as to the dispute about the three-miles limit—apart from that dispute, of course—the war vessels or police vessels of any nation, in protecting its shipping upon the high seas, are entitled, as the only way in which that protection can be made effective, in case of necessity to fire upon a pirate or any vessel which chooses to interfere with a peaceful vessel upon her
peaceful occasions, and it was only in that way, and for no other reason whatever, and involving no new policy, that those instructions have been given.
May I say a word with regard to the very serious language that the hon. Member used when he spoke about avoiding conflict and war and something of that sort? May I take this opportunity of saying, in advance of the Debate which we shall have next week, that the idea of war or conflict in that sense with Russia has never for a moment entered into the heads of the Government. The idea to me is horrible. I shall be perfectly prepared, I hope, at any rate to the best of my ability, to meet the criticisms which will be levelled at the policy of the Government next week with regard to the Note and so on, but certainly I have not any difficulty whatever in saying that nothing is further from the intention of the Government than to do anything which, in our judgment, could lead to war. I will not now go into the question of the three-miles limit. Of course, it is, as the hon. Member stated, a dispute which has been going on in different forms for a great length of time, and has never arrived at any very settled policy; but, of course, the position which this country has always taken, and is taking now, and, I think, will take, is that until some arrangement has been made—we can make any arrangement by international agreement; we might make an arrangement which would give us the whole of the Channel as territorial waters, we might claim a boundary which would give us the Dogger Bank as our territorial waters; you can do anything by international agreement, but our position is that until that is arrived at—we must insist upon what, by long usage, has been accepted by everybody, subject to variations, and that is the three-miles limit; and the complaint in our Note to Russia is not that we have not arrived at an agreement on the international point, but that, pending such an agreement, they have acted in a high-handed way, which they have no right to do, and in a perfectly different way from the way in which both the previous Russian Government and the American Government have acted under similar circumstances, when they also have made claims which, on an international basis, we have not been able to accept. That is all, I
think, that I can say at the present moment, but I want very clearly to repeat that I do not think that anything that we have done has had any such sinister interpretation as the hon. Gentleman thought it was possible to put upon it.

SAAR VALLEY AND RUHR DISTRICT.

Mr. MOREL: I am sure the statement we have just heard from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will have caused great relief to every Member on this side of the House. A war between Russia and ourselves over the questions raised in the Note would not only be a monstrosity in itself, but would lead to very serious events in this country. We have had an interesting Debate on the Saar, and out of that Debate has emerged one fact which we, on this side of the House, I think, are pretty unanimous in emphasising, and that is that, until there is a League which is a real League, an all-inclusive League, and not merely a League of the victorious Powers in the late War, you never will have a really efficient and impartial body to adjudicate and settle international affairs, and again, until the League in its constitution is far more democratic than at present, and until you have representatives on its Council and its Assembly and its Commissions who are not merely representatives of the Government of the day, but representatives, in the true sense, of the peoples concerned, you will never have a really efficient body.
The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), who, I am sorry to see, is not now in his place, widened out the Debate beyond the Saar and made what, if I may be permitted to say so, was a very courageous speech. It is always very courageous to admit that you have been wrong, and the Noble Lord's whole speech, from beginning to end, was an admission virtually that he had been living in a sort of twilight of illusion, the action that he took the last time we debated this Ruhr question when he was in the House was diametrically opposed to the action that he took to-day. On the former occasion he pooh-poohed absolutely the idea of the League of Nations intervening, and he discouraged the Government from appealing to the League, but to-day he burned his boats and turned
completely round. That is very satisfactory to us, and it is very satisfactory to those of us especially, on this side of the House, whom the Noble Lord has castigated somewhat severely for not holding the optimistic views that he himself has so often expressed here as to the objects of French policy. I think the attitude taken by the French Government in connection with the German Note, and the method that it has adopted, has opened the eyes, not only of the Noble Lord, but of a great many other people in this country, to the real character of French policy.
I hardly think that it is worth while discussing the merits or demerits of the Note. There is not a Member of this House, there is not a Member of the Government, who is in a position to say how much more Germany can pay without bringing ruin upon herself and upon her creditors. I have been hearing the views, conveyed to me personally during the last few days, of a number of City men, with a presumably large experience of affairs, and they have one and all told me that they do not believe that Germany can pay anything like the amount of money she is prepared to pay, as she says, in her offer.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is not true of the City generally.

Mr. MOREL: I have no doubt that business men differ, but I am in touch with a few business men of some importance in the City, and their view is unanimous, not only that Germany cannot pay anything like what she has offered, but that it is utterly impossible for Germany to hope to get any international guarantee until she has been able to prove to the world that she has got back her recuperative machinery into her own hands. What attitude do the Germans themselves take? It seems to me to be an attitude, whether you agree with her offer and think it adequate or not, which is unanswerable. They say this: If you do not think we are offering enough, call in a body of international financial experts—

Sir F. BANBURY: Oh!

Mr. MOREL: Certainly—and get really a scientific opinion, instead of these ridiculous opinions which we have had up to the present moment. Then they say: If you think our guarantee
is not enough—and we offer, after all, to pledge all the resources of the State—tell us what you would like us to guarantee. Unanswerable. There the matter for the time being may lie, until common sense has replaced political prejudice and political folly, but two things, I think, may usefully be said. The first is that the original idea of attempting to make one belligerent nation in the Great War pay the cost of the War—an idea worthy of the inhabitants of Bedlam and based upon the preposterous and ridiculous opinion that one nation alone was responsible for the War; this idea, which has presided over all the futile Conferences of the past four years, is working out to-day its own Nemesis, and will continue to do so until both the idea and the postulate are abandoned. Another point which may be made is this, that, no matter what the Germans had offered, no matter what guarantee they had made, the present rulers of France, whom, I say again, as I have said here before, do not in my conviction—and there is more and more evidence of it—represent the people of France as a whole, would have turned it down, for the simple reason that the present rulers of France do not want Germany to get on to her feet again, and know perfectly well that if this indemnity question is settled, as it can only be settled, on an international basis, Germany will get on to her feet again.
7.0 P.M.
The real issue in this matter is not reparations. It never has been reparations. It is not security. It never has been security. The real issue in this matter is whether or not the present rulers of France are going to succeed in their fixed and determined aim of disrupting Germany. That is the real issue. It is an issue of very great importance not only to France and Germany, but to the whole of the continent of Europe and to ourselves. All these discussions about reparations and security are really completely artificial when you are faced with a situation such as you are facing to-day—when a French army is paralysing the heart and lungs of industrial Germany, when the Saar Valley is being virtually annexed to France under the cloak of the League of Nations, when the whole of the civil administration of the Rhineland is being ruthlessly stamped out and the whole
country is being gallicised. Deportations to-day amount to over 23,400 persons, including 33 editors, five Roman Catholic priests, 10 Protestant clergymen, and 150 teachers. This, I repeat, is the real issue—whether France is going to succeed in disrupting Germany. This country can no longer afford to ignore the real issue. The interest of our working-classes, the interests of our commercial classes and our national security are being more and more affected, and French policy is threatening more and more the peace, the immediate peace, of the world.
I would like to be permitted to draw the attention of the Committee to several aspects of the question, which perhaps have not received in this House, the attention which they ought to have received. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in another place, or in a public speech, I forgot which, repeated a few days ago the well-known formula that the maintenance of the Entente was the only hope for peace in Europe, and Ministers in this House constantly refer to the French as our Allies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Quite so. Well, what I want to know, what this House is entitled to know, and what the country is entitled to know, is, if France is our ally, are the preparations for war which are now going on in Europe under French direction going on with our knowledge and consent, by virtue, it may be, of some secret political or military agreement, of which this House knows nothing? Are they going on with our knowledge; and, whether they are or not, what is the purpose of these military preparations? I claim that the time has come when the country must be told the truth. It is not being told the truth to-day. It does not know what is the real position.
What is the truth? Put bluntly—and I shall make no reference whatever to French armaments as to which a good deal has recently been disclosed—the truth is this: The French General Staff is organising the new Europe for war. French finance is supplying the money and French armament firms the material. Before justifying that deliberate statement, which I shall do here and at once, I would beg the Committee to bear in mind the tremendous revolution which has been wrought in the distribution of power in Central Europe and South-East Europe as the result of the Versailles
Treaty and accessory Treaties. Austria is to-day little more than a geographical expression. Hungary has become an open and unprotected plain: its capital is within the range of the guns of its northern neighbour: its armed forces are insignificant with virtually no modern equipment. Upon these ruins and the ruins of the old Tsarist Empire, four States stand erect. Two of them are new creations: one has been resurrected: the fourth has greatly increased its territory. These four States are Czecho-Slovakia with 14,000,000 inhabitants, Yugo-Slavia with 12,000,000, Rumania with 17,000,000, Poland with 27,000,000. The first three are known as the Little Entente to which Poland, although not formally, is more or less attached through the connecting French link. It is these four States of the new Europe that the French General Staff is organising for war and which the French Government is equipping for war.
Let us glance at the modus operandi on the financial, political and military side. Let me take first the financial side.
On the financial side, France has lent Poland 400,000,000 francs, and is negotiating for a loan to Yugo-Slavia of 300,000,000 francs, which I believe has gone through—at any rate 100,000,000 is now in operation—and 100,000,000 francs to Rumania. All this money is to be expended upon arms, not spent for the benefit of the countries concerned, but spent in armaments—made in France.
So far as Yugo-Slavia, where there is just now intense military activity, is concerned, new munition factories are being set up in the neighbourhood of Belgrade where hundreds of homes for workmen are being erected in the vicinity of the new factories. So far as Rumania is concerned, M. Antonescu, the Rumanian Minister in Paris, has recently stated that the new equipment will be transported directly to Rumania in French vessels.
Now with regard to the political and military side. I put questions at the end of last Session to the Under-Secretary of State for War and to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs as to the plan of operations of the summer manœuvres of the Polish Army. I got an evasive reply. Possibly the information was not known to His Majesty's Government. Possibly the fact that the Chief of our General Staff is accompanying His
Majesty to Italy and is going on from Borne to Warsaw will enable the Government to have the information which it did not have at the end of last Session. Marshal Foch is at present in Warsaw, arranging the details of a new military convention between Poland and Czechoslovakia. The French General Le Rond has been in Prague—he was there all last month—putting the finishing touches to the same Convention from the Czechoslovakian end. We may be sure that when it is completed, this Convention will no more be communicated to the League of Nations than the Franco-Polish Convention, of which it is the complement, has been. A very well-known French General—General Mittelhauser—is the Chief of Staff of the Czechoslovakian Army. Preparations are now being made on an extensive scale for manœuvres of the Czechoslovakian Army next month along what is termed the Trianon frontier, along the Southern slopes of the Carpathians. These manœuvres will coincide with the arrival of Marshal Foch at Prague next week, who will probably, between now and then, have paid a visit to Bucharest and Belgrade. A word now as to the capacity and equipment of these new legions which are being trained under the supervision of the French General Staff in Europe. Under the new scheme—I will not trouble the Committee with the details of divisions and brigades which I have here—Czechoslovakia has a peace strength of 180,000—not a very large figure perhaps for a population of 14,000,000, but, I would remind the Committee, 80,000 more than is allowed to Germany with her population of 63,000,000. The strength of the active army on a war footing under the new plan is 1,300,000. The peace equipment provides for 800 war-planes which, however, by the Act of Parliament passed last year will be successively increased to 1,400. The peace footing of the Yugo-Slav Army is 140,000–40,000 more than Germany is allowed. As now provided for the war strength will be 1,500,000. Rumania's Army on a peace footing is 210,000—more than double that of Germany's. Its active war strength will henceforth be 1,700,000. The full details of the Polish peace and war strength have not yet, I think, been worked out. At any rate, I do not yet possess them.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us what the peace army of the Russian nation is at the same time.

Mr. MOREL: I am following out a line of argument, and the hon. Member must allow me to do so. I am now giving information which I think this House ought to know. All these States have Conscription Laws. The Czechoslovakian Conscription Law of 1920 applies to all males between the ages of 17 and 60, and provides for 43 classes with a total of 2,300,000—i.e., including all the reserves, plus the active army figures which I have already given. The Yugo-Slavian Conscription Law affects males between 19 and 50 years of age, provides for 32 classes with a total of 1,600,000. The Rumanian Conscription Law affects all males between 19 and 46 years, provides for 27 classes and totals 2,500,000. Thus, under the direct supervision of the French General Staff, 6,500,000 men in these States of the Little Entente alone, four and a half years after peace was signed, are being drilled and equipped for the next war. And this takes no account—[Interruption]. Interruptions do not add to the clarity of debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is to keep Germany in order!"] This takes no account of Poland or of Belgium for which country tens of thousands of our lads were sacrificed to preserve its independence and which has now become in a political and military sense, practically a French province.
Now I come to the point which is troubling hon. Members opposite. We are either allies of France or we are not. If we are allies of France then this arming of the new Europe is being carried out with the knowledge and with the approval of the British Government. If that is the case this House and the country have a right to know for what purpose and under what agreement, secret or otherwise? For what reason are these legions being raised? Against whom are they going to be flung when the twelfth hour strikes again? These are things which we have a right to know. If these preparations are being carried out with the knowledge and consent, and with the committal of our Government, we should know. If we are not committed in any way, if there is no secret agreement under which we approve of these preparations,
for the next war in Europe, then let us drop the word "Allies" and let us know where we stand.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I only speak by the hon. Gentleman giving way, but may I ask him what does he mean by arming for the war that is in preparation? He is building up a structure—we do not agree as to facts—but will he tell us, for it is not clear—he puts it as a fait accompli—about the war that is in preparation.

Mr. MOREL: That is a rather long interjection, but one does not generally raise and equip 6½ millions of men with modern weapons in order to play football You have a helpless and disarmed Germany [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] These interruptions merely make me keep the Committee longer than I wish to do. I got up to say certain things, and I shall say them. The more I am interrupted, the longer it will take me to say them. That we have disarmed Germany in Europe was admitted here the other day by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for War. You have Germany with 100,000 men. Austria is wiped out. Hungary does not count. Why are the States of the New Europe arming to the teeth under French supervision? If it is not for war, what is it for? I say if we are allies of France, then this is being done with our knowledge and consent, and we ought to know why and for what purpose? If it is not being so done, then let us drop the word "ally." We must know where we stand, not only because of our own most vital national interests, and because of the cause of peace, but for the preservation, which I can assure hon. Members on the other side of the House that hon. Members on this side of the House are just as keen about as they are—the preservation of good relations between the British and French peoples. There appears to me to be a very singular lack of what is needed at this present moment precisely for the preservation of the good relations between France and England and that is frankness, not only between France and ourselves, but with ourselves. We saw the beginning of the former the other day in the reply given to this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by Lord Curzon in another place on the French action respecting the German offer, with which pronouncement most hon. Members in
this House were in agreement. There has been that beginning of frankness between France and Britain, and if it is carried on it can only help to heal rather than to widen the breach which is widening every day.
But we want also frankness among ourselves. There is a remarkable reluctance on our part here to admit what a very large part our past official acts have played during the last four years, up to the moment of the present Government coming into power, in bringing about the state of affairs which exists in Europe at the present day. What is the key to the whole situation? The key to the whole situation is that France to-day, or rather the present rulers of France, are logically and ruthlessly carrying out the policy embodied in the Versailles Treaty, if not in the letter at least in the spirit, and until we are determined to break away from that policy and from that spirit we have no real basis of approach to the better mind of France, and we have no real basis of appeal to what is perhaps the most potent force in human affairs, the moral opinion of the world. It cannot be too often emphasised that both before and since the imposition of the Treaty of Versailles upon Germany, and until we found that our interests were adversely affected, the Coalition Government worked hand in glove in a policy which is now seen to be developing disastrously for all concerned. The proposal which was eventually adopted, the proposal to add pensions to the damages, which swelled the indemnity to fantastic proportions and thus diminished the payment to France for her devastated areas, was a British proposal It ought not to be forgotten that the Versailles Treaty was a joint production. It ought not to be forgotten that the ridiculous demand of £11,000,000,000 odd in January, 1921, was a joint demand, that the occupation of the ports of the Ruhr, Dusseldorf, Duisberg and Ruhrort, though carried out by the French, was approved by us. It cannot be too often emphasised that the subsequent demand for £6,600,000,000 in May, 1921, was a joint demand, and the ultimatum that the Ruhr would be occupied unless the Germans paid up was a joint ultimatum. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and M. Clemenceau share a distinction which will go down to
posterity of being the creators of the Versailles Treaty. The right hon. Gentleman is not here. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is here by the Speaker's Chair."] I am glad he is here as I do not like criticising people in their absence. Since he is here he must allow me to say that one of the most audacious statements that can surely ever have been made in this House was made by him on 19th February last, in reply to a speech by my Friend the Member for the Colne Valley. The right hon. Gentleman stated that no such demands as demands for £11,000,000,000 or £6,600,000,000 had ever been made upon the German Government. This is a matter which cannot be left as the right hon. Gentleman left it. In regard to the first demand, the demand of January, 1921, I have a copy of the actual Note here signed by the right hon. Gentleman in which the 42 annuities beginning at £100,000,000 and rising to £300,000,000 and totalling £11,300,000,000 are specified as sums that Germany "must pay." "Devra payer" are the words used. I have yet to learn that they mean anything but "must pay." When I first drew the attention, in this House, of the present Prime Minister to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman and asked for a White Paper, the Prime Minister—whom we all hope to see soon fully restored to health in his seat—replied that it was not necessary because the newspapers had given the details at the time. That, of course, was perfectly true. "The Times" leader of 31st January said:
The provisions of the Paris settlement are fully described in our messages. They fix the amount to be paid by Germany at £11,300,000,000, payable in 42 years from 1st May next, or at some £2,150,000,000 less than the total contemplated at Boulogne.
The "Times" correspondent waxed rather sarcastic, and said:
Yesterday morning all went merrily as a marriage bell.… Drastic sanctions were agreed to … as a condiment to a mighty dish of Allied decisions for Teutonic digestion, M. Briand praised Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Lloyd George praised M. Briand. A unanimous declaration of Allied solidarity in peace as in war was prefixed to the minutes of the proceedings. It was even stated … that at the close of the Conference the delegates in their enthusiasm sang each other's national anthems, keeping the best time and tune they could. According to another account they sang them all simultaneously. This
cannot be true. It would have been too dreadful.
Then as to the second demand made as a result of the Conference in May, 1921, the demand for £6,600,000,000, the right hon. Gentleman went into the details at great length in this House, after the abortive visit of Dr. Simons, in a debate on 5th May, and the substantive portion of his declaration was this:
After hearing everything which the German representatives had to say … the Reparations Commission last month found that, after deducting the amount already received, and after the Belgian Debt—which is to be added to the payment of the reparations—there was due from Germany £6,600,000,000—gold pounds. Of this figure, France claims 52 per cent., and the British Empire 22 per cent.
An ultimatum was sent to Germany on the 5th of May, and they had to accept or reject it within six days, failing which, the Ruhr would be occupied. And yet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George) had the audacity to come down to this House on 19th February last and say that this demand had never been made. Reminded on that occasion by the present Prime Minister that in making that demand, and presenting that ultimatum, the right hon. Gentleman had either foreseen "all these calamities which had happened and was preparing for them, or else he was making a proposal which he knew that Germany could not accept," the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon interjected the word "bluff." Yes, it is that "bluff," carried on for four-and-a-half years, which has brought Europe to its present position. It is that bluff, which I prefer to call criminal folly, which has brought about the present tension between the British and French peoples, who have no real quarrel, but who tomorrow may find themselves, if not foes, at least next door to it.
The fact that, under the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman, this country marched together with France along the same road of folly, which we are now increasingly realising to be such, that we participated with France in every step taken upon that road, does, in my opinion, make it incumbent upon us to put forth a serious effort to turn France from her present course before the automatic development of her rulers' folly has compromised the relations of the two peoples beyond redemption. We cannot
do this simply by insisting that experience has taught us wisdom, and that it ought to have taught France wisdom. We can only do this by showing to the French people and to the world that, as I said a moment ago, we are determined for our part to break with the policy embodied in the Versailles Treaty, and make, as Castlereagh made in 1815, and Gladstone made in 1872, a disinterested gesture in the face of the world.
We can say to France: "We are prepared unconditionally and primarily as a concession to you, to drop any further claim for indemnities from Germany. And conditionally upon your withdrawing your troops from German soil, giving up this idea of dismembering Germany, coming to a conference like sensible human beings, a new world conference, to clear up this financial mess we have all got into, to make the League of Nations a reality, and elaborating some scheme of disarmament, conditionally upon that we will wipe out your debt to us, and become the principal guarantors of an international loan upon the security of Germany's resources. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] No doubt some- hon. Members would prefer that this quarrel should go on, but I do not want it to go on. What is the alternative? If this course I have suggested fails, then at least we shall know where we stand, and we shall have made what, in my opinion, is the only appeal which will affect American opinion.
The affecting of American opinion is in my view the crux of the whole situation, because there is between the British and the American peoples a link in all that pertains to the War and the aftermath of the War which is unique, for in Britain and America, unlike the Continental belligerents, the mass of the people went into the War in the passionate belief that they were going to destroy war and militarism. Upon that sentiment—and I am not sure that sentiment does not really rule the world more than finance—upon that basis I think a wise and sagacious statesmanship can build an enduring superstructure. If that policy is tried and fails what remains? Simply a drift into a catastrophe between France and Germany which cannot be delayed much beyond August, and the gradual development of this sullen quarrel between Britain and France,
marked by intrigue and counter-intrigue, by reshuffling and reshunting of relations in the pursuit of a balance of power, that are going on now, accompanied by the beginning of a new rivalry in armaments which indeed has already begun. There is only one end to that road, and we all know in this House what it is.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. Member who has just sat down has not produced a single fact to warrant any of his statements. He told us that the French Government had lost the confidence of the French people, and he also stated that we had demanded the whole cost of the War from Germany, although he must know that even in the Treaty of Versailles we did not demand the whole cost of the War. The hon. Member told us that Francs was arming for another war, but he never produced a single fact to show us in what way she was arming. He mentioned the number of troops, but he never told us the armaments which the French were producing, and he never told us the number of men required for the programme which the French were carrying out in the Ruhr. If the French have mobilised a certain number of troops, does it not occur to the hon. Member opposite that if the French embark on their programme in the Ruhr these forces are necessary to carry out their policy? Does it not occur to the hon. Member that if any reparations are to be got from Germany a certain amount of force is required?
We have heard a good deal about the League of Nations. I have always been a great believer in the idea of the League of Nations, and I am at the present moment, but that League at present does not exist. There is a League of Nations, but there has never been the League of Nations, and there cannot be until you have every great Power in the world in it. Without the United States the League of Nations cannot be a real force in the world, and it cannot be the League of Nations. It is true that you have a League of Nations existing at Geneva to which a certain number of big Powers send representatives, but Germany is not a member of it, and with regard to the great problems that have arisen out of the War, the League of Nations, as at present constituted, is not capable of dealing with them. Even at the Peace
Conference the Peace was not settled by the League of Nations, but it was brought about eventually by four men who sat in one room. If we were to put this problem of the Ruhr before the League of Nations, the discussions which would take place upon that problem would make it quite impossible to reach any solution within a reasonable time
One criticism which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) was that France, in her reply to the German offer for the payment of reparations, did not wait until our Government had had an opportunity of meeting the representatives of the French Government and delivering a joint Note to the German. I suggest that there was no time for the French to do that. If France had delayed replying to the German offer the Germans would have concluded that France had some intention of accepting the same after asking for a little more than was offered. If in business and trade you make a definite offer for a certain concern, and the owner of that concern delays his reply, then you know that you have made an offer fairly near the sum which he is likely to accept, and if you go a little higher you know that he will take it. If France had hesitated the Germans would have been right in assuming that their offer, though too small, was somewhere near what the French were willing to accept. Consequently the French Government immediately replied to the German offer without waiting, telling them that the sum was not large enough.
I am not criticising the action of our Government in regard to this matter, because their action was perfectly obvious. I put it that if the French had waited until they knew what the reply of the British Government was going to be we should have had another conference, and after a great deal of delay the reply would have been made by the Allies in which Germany would have been asked to pay more, and that this delay would have been most serious from the French point of view in compelling the Germans to pay the sum which they deemed to be adequate. The British Government issued their Note, in which they criticised mildly the action of the French in being so precipitate. I think, when
one reads that Note, one can read nothing of pessimism, because it is a distinct and direct move for co-operation, between ourselves and France, in European politics. There are some hon. Members in the House who have an absolute belief in the League of Nations for solving all the problems in Europe and the world; and there are some of us, on these benches, who have a good deal more faith that by co-operation with France in Europe you will solve the great problems of Europe and the world. Those of us who hold that view, if they see any means put before them by which France and this country can be called together again in order to solve those difficulties, would support them wholeheartedly.
After the speeches we have heard to-night, which have been mostly speeches of despair, and a great number of which have been speeches of pessimism, to draw attention to the other Debates on the Ruhr that have taken place, when first the French went into the Ruhr, hon. Members opposite predicted that the most terrible things would take place; that unemployment in this country would be very severe; that unemployment figures would grow; that our trade would be worse; that our business would suffer; that the Stock Exchange prices would fall; and that gilt-edged securities and prices in the industrial market would fall, also. Not a single one of those things has happened. The French have been in the Ruhr four months, but the unemployed figures have been steadily reduced by over 250,000 men less than in January last. So far as the Stock Exchange is concerned, not only have gilt-edged securities risen but throughout the whole industrial market, on the average, industrials have risen. Trade has improved, and the average import and export trade of this country have very greatly improved since the French went into the Ruhr. I am not instancing that to suggest that the action of the French in going into the Ruhr has had an advantageous effect, but to point out that it has not had a disadvantageous effect. If one studies the figures of the cost of living, or the prices of commodities, one immediately comes to the conclusion that the entrance of the French into the Ruhr has not had the slightest effect, either on the cost of living in this country or on our external trade.
If the French remain in the Ruhr another six months it will not have the slightest effect on our trade or on business in this country. All those dreadful prophecies, which were made by hon. Members opposite when the French went into the Ruhr, have been entirely and absolutely falsified. Although the future in Europe has been painted very black by hon. Gentlemen this evening, I suggest that, in reality, it is not so black as it appears. The French are in the Ruhr, and they are not going out of the Ruhr until Germany pays some of the money that very many of us, on this side of the House, believe she should pay. I believe the majority of people in this country would insist upon Germany paying a great portion of the wreckage which she caused in the War. Nobody suggests, as an hon. Member opposite assumed, that we were demanding the whole cost of the War from Germany. We are not doing that, and we never have demanded that. Even if the Germans offered enough money to cover a portion of the wreckage that they caused, they would be offering sufficient, and what the French would accept. The French say, however, and very naturally, that they will not evacuate the Ruhr before the last penny of the money for reparation is paid. Is not that absolutely business? We have had the Treaty of Versailles, which the Germans signed, in which they definitely stated that they would give us a definite sum of money. They have not given it to us.
What is to prevent the Germans from signing again, if it is necessary, or offering a definite sum of money, and then, the moment the French have gone out of the Ruhr, refusing to pay? You cannot have the French popping in and out of the Ruhr, whenever the Germans have refused to pay. The French are perfectly right, on a business footing, in saying, "You pay this money to us, and until you pay the last instalment we will not leave the Ruhr." Hon. Members may suggest, as it was suggested on the opposite benches, that the French never intend to leave the Ruhr. Surely, from a practical and business point of view, would any Member opposite make any other terms? It is perfectly plain business that the French will not, in any circumstances, withdraw their forces from the Ruhr until the Germans have paid the last penny. I suggest that if
the French had not gone into the Ruhr we should never have had the offer from the Germans which we had the other day.

Mr. PRINGLE: There was a better one, before.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I suggest that if the French remain in the Ruhr, and carry out their policy, a very much better offer will be forthcoming later on, in which the Germans will offer a much larger sum, and not, as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Morel) suggested, with the assistance of a loan levied in this country. The hon. Member not only suggested we should let the Germans off every penny they owed us, but that, afterwards, they should raise the money with which they were to pay the French in this country. By that, we should not only get no money from Germany, but should pay the indemnity which Germany owes France. The hon. Member, I hope, does not speak for the whole of the party which he represents, but for whoever he spoke I am perfectly certain he could not have been absolutely in earnest in that, because he put forward—

Mr. MOREL: The hon. Member will excuse me. I am always in earnest, and I mean every word I said.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: And perfectly consistent.

Mr. MOREL: And perfectly consistent.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I merely rose to suggest that there was no ground in that Note for the pessimism and despair we have heard this evening. I hope the British Government, in future, will work for that co-operation with France that so many of us on these benches hope and desire again to see. I suggest there are still a few people alive in this country, and still a few Members alive in this House, who desire to see a proper Reparation got from Germany and who mean to see that they are obtained.

Mr. JAMES BUTLER: I should like to join in commiserating the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education on the difficulties with which he was confronted at Geneva, which were not lessened by the fact that he is not the ordinary spokesman of the Government in foreign affairs. The really serious thing about this absurd incident in the Saar is that it shows that here is
an organisation, started under the auspices of the League of Nations—very largely, I believe, at the initiation of the British—which is being used, or has been used since the French invaded the Ruhr, in a way absolutely alien from British ideas; and not only from the ideas of the people in this country, but from those of the British Commonwealth overseas. In all this business, I do not think there is anything more pathetic than the figure cut by the Canadian representative, Mr. Waugh. Mr. Waugh was invited over from Canada, at very great personal inconvenience, and came over from sheer loyalty to the Canadian Government, to try and make this Saar concern a success. Ever since he got there, on any important issue, he has been voted down, as a rule, I believe, in a minority of one. The right hon. Gentleman said something about trusting the man on the spot. It occurred to me, when he said that, that there were several men on the spot; and I wondered which of those he preferred to consult. I think importance might have been attached to the opinion of an absolutely impartial British and Canadian citizen there, who had absolutely no axe to grind whatever.
The next point that arises is that here is a matter in which the Council of the League of Nations has absolutely failed to give any redress to the inhabitants of the Saar. I was astonished when the right hon. Gentleman said that the Council had no source of information, except the President of the Governing Commission, as to what the conditions were in the Saar. Possibly, as such, the Council had no information, but surely the members of the Council had the resources of ten Foreign Offices at their disposal. Perhaps that is going rather far. The Foreign Offices of Uruguay and China, and perhaps Brazil and Japan, may not have been very well primed on the subject of affairs in the Saar. But surely the Foreign Offices of the great European Powers had plenty of information, of which they might have made use, for a settlement of the question. I do not wish to say anything against the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. So far as I can make out, his protest was one of dignity, and was respected by everyone.
There is one point in regard to the election of Mr. Land, which seems to me
to be an extremely bad piece of staff work on the part of the Council, and of the right hon. Gentleman's advisers, namely, that there was no name down in opposition to Mr. Land. Obviously, it was very difficult, when only one name was put before the Council, not to vote for that name. The right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Branting abstained, but so long as there was no other name down, it was very unlikely that Mr. Land would not be elected. That was a very serious mistake of organisation, that no names, in opposition to Mr. Land, were put forward. Surely, the real unsatisfactoriness of the whole affair comes back to the fact that the Council, with an unwisdom almost incredible at the present day, selected a French gentleman to be President. I have nothing to say against Mr. Rault, as an individual; but how can a Frenchman be impartial in a Commission like this, where you have an extremely important difference between the French and the German attitude? The first thing, and the most important thing, was to find a President who could be looked on as impartial. I hope, when the next election of a President comes on, it will be possible for the British Government to take some initiative to alter this mistake. That is one example of the fatal consequence of yielding, out of the best of motives, to the French pressure, when a question of principle is concerned. The question of principle here is that we cannot have an impartial President unless he is neither a Frenchman nor an inhabitant of the Saar Valley. This was done, no doubt, in order to avoid friction with the French, but the results have been absolutely disastrous.
I will take one other example of this danger of yielding to the French pressure. Take the question of Poland. A short time ago, the question of the Eastern frontiers of Poland was brought up, and decided, as they had every right to decide it, by the members of the Council of Ambassadors. Both questions, that of the Polish-Lithuanian frontier, and that of Eastern Galicia, were of extreme difficulty, and I am not suggesting any better method of settling them. The points I would like to insist on, are these. First, in regard to Poland and Lithuania, that there you had an absolutely different position taken up by the representatives of the Powers on the Council of Ambassadors from the schemes put forward on the
authority of those Powers in the Council of the League of Nations. Unless the explanation is French pressure, I do not see how that difference can be accounted for. Secondly, in the case of Eastern Galicia, the point at issue is not so much what was done, as the way in which it was done. Surely a case of autonomy was exactly one where the League of Nations was, above all, the proper body that ought to have been consulted. The Council of Ambassadors decided that Eastern Galicia was to have autonomy, but apparently they took no steps whatever to secure that autonomy should be a reality. Can we believe anything else but that it was owing to French pressure that the League of Nations was not consulted on that matter? I have no doubt the British Government would have been delighted to refer the matter to the League of Nations, and I believe it was due to French pressure that they yielded.
8.0 P.M.
Needless to say, I do not want to object to the influence of France as such. No League of Nations in Europe can be successful unless France plays a prominent part, but the present state of things is that French influence, to put it mildly, does not work in the interests of European reconciliation. One might put it very much more strongly indeed, and it has been put more strongly by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Morel). I am going to say nothing about the question of French policy in the Ruhr. That has been very largely discussed; but I would like to say something about the manner of the execution of that French policy. It was perfectly possible for the French policy in the Ruhr to have been executed in a much more humane manner than it has been. I need only refer to the monstrous sentences passed by a French Court on the Krupp directors. The whole country has been staggered by the sentences of 15 years' imprisonment, plus a fine of 100,000,000 marks. For what crime? For the crime of having 12 German workmen shot by French troops, not a hair of the heads of the French troops having been hurt. This is following the example of the Bolshevist Government, who are using the sentences of Courts as a diplomatic instrument. One word as to the effect of all this in Germany. The Germans who most regret and condemn the attitude of their reactionaries will tell you that this is the
main thing which tends to strengthen their own extreme nationalists, who are strong enough already. From the point of view of France, it is perfectly mad. I hold no brief for the Germans, but surely it is absolute madness to indulge in this bullying of a nation of 70,000,000 people which, under any circumstances, is bound to play a great part in the future of Europe.
I would like to know if the British Government has done everything in its power to mitigate the effects of French severity? Have we done everything we could to try to promote a policy of European reconciliation? Have we done anything to try to check this mad increase of armaments on the part of certain European Powers? I think one must certainly allow for the danger caused to these Powers in Eastern Europe by Russia, but I should like very much to know whether his Majesty's Government have taken any initiative in this respect at all? To many of us it seems that the British Government have absolutely abdicated the initiative in European affairs, and that the initiative everywhere is being taken by the French Government. We are playing second fiddle, if sometimes a rather discordant fiddle. It is constantly said, and by many of the strongest advocates of the League of Nations in this country, that the French have captured the Council of the League of Nations, and, when one considers the way in which the votes of the members of the Council have been east recently, it is a plausible suggestion. It seems to me that the blame is very largely our own. I doubt very much whether our Government have done as much, to use an unpleasant word, in manipulating the organs of the League as has been done by other nations. In America, the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) told us, the British Government are suspected of Macchiavelian designs in foreign policy. I rather wish that in this matter we had shown a little more of a Macchiavelian disposition. I wish we had done more to try to push our own policies, which are usually sound policies, in the League of Nations. I believe in France there is a strong inter-Departmental Committee which discusses all questions interesting France which are to come before the League of Nations. I believe in our own case we have only one representative, one member of the Foreign Office, though an extremely able and capable one, whose
business it is to deal with questions concerning the League of Nations. It seems to me it is not surprising, under these circumstances, that France should be able to make her weight felt more powerfully in the League than we are.
Are we thinking, for instance, how we are to use the machinery of the League of Nations for the policies we have at heart? Are we taking every step to use all the resources of diplomacy with a view to making our own policy prevail? Have we done everything we could to make use of the good offices of the Scandinavian States, of Holland and of Switzerland, in this vast question of European reconciliation; and, if not, why have we not done so? Many people speak as if a League of Nations policy is an end in itself. It is desirable so far as it goes, but it is inadequate. The League is not an end but an instrument, though a valuable instrument, and what we have to do is to use that instrument and play upon that instrument for the policy in which we have an interest, and I believe the British Government are not using the instrument of the League as they might do. I hope that when the time comes the British Government will make far greater use than they have of the machinery of the League of Nations towards pushing on the all-important question of the limitation of armaments in Europe.
The present isolation of Germany is most dangerous, and dangerous above all to France. The policy of the British Government since the Armistice has been exactly the opposite of the policy of Castlereagh after the last great war. He first negotiated a Treaty of Alliance which would secure the countries of Europe against French aggression for the next 20 years, but, after that, he was extremely reasonable and lenient in allowing France to take her share in the counsels of the Great Powers. We have done just the opposite. We have provided no guarantee for France against German aggression, and we have refused to admit Germany into our counsels. The policy of Castlereagh was very much sounder than that of the late Government. With regard to the entry of Germany into the League of Nations, as a result of certain decisions of the League of Nations Germany has been alienated from it. It is true that the British Government have on more than one occasion declared their willingness
to see Germany admitted to the League, but I would press the Government to do more than that. I would press them to try to urge Germany to come into the League at the earliest possible date and to allow Germany to come in at once as a member of the Council. Germany will never enter the League unless she comes in by right as a member of the Council.
And now, what can we do for France? For France to feel that she is insecure is a danger to Europe, but with regard to the question of French security, there is a very remarkable dilemma or paradox. It appears that French politicians and soldiers admit that for the next 10 or perhaps 15 years Germany can do them no harm. The French are afraid of what is going to happen to them after 15 years. But the trouble is that the guarantees to France under the Treaty of Versailles are only for the preliminary period during which there is no danger. What we have to do is to try to contrive some form of security which will protect France after the first period, during which Germany is disarmed, has passed. It has been suggested that the Rhineland should be demilitarised and under international control. If it is to be only for a term of years, there is a great deal to be said for such a régime, but it seems to me it would be extraordinarily unwise to use the League of Nations for that purpose unless Germany had previously been admitted to the League. Have international rule if you like, but do not use the machinery of the League of Nations until Germany has been admitted. The one fatal thing would be to make such a régime perpetual, to say that for all time to come the Rhineland is to be ruled under international control. I was glad the other day to see in the important speech of the Foreign Secretary on this question that he laid it down that guarantees for France must preferably be reciprocal. That is at the core of the whole question.
If guarantees are merely one-sided and if they are supposed to be in perpetuity, you will have the same thing as happened in the case of Russia and the Black Sea. At the end of the Crimean war, Russia was forced to agree that she would not keep warships in the Black Sea., but, when the Powers which had
been engaged against her in that war were otherwise engaged later, Russia broke that condition. This kind of guarantee made in perpetuity and on one side only is doomed to ineffectiveness. If you are to have permanent security you must have guarantees which Germany can herself accept as reasonable and that means they must be reciprocal. It may not be very popular in France to suggest that France should be called upon to give guarantees, but that is the only result we can come to. It is impossible to make out that Germany is and has always been the eternal aggressor and that France is and always has been the eternal victim. That is absolutely unhistorical. I do not want to go into the instances, but everyone remembers them perfectly well. If guarantees are to be of any use, if they are to hold for long, they must be reciprocal guarantees to which Germany herself will agree. Those guarantees, I think, can only be found in some such scheme as that put forward by my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), a scheme for mutual guarantees and for reduction of armaments, a scheme which was accepted by the Assembly of the League of Nations last year, and which is at present being discussed by the military advisers of the League. If I might, I would urge the Government to do all that they can to adopt this policy, and to press it for all they are worth by the machinery of the League of Nations and by all the machinery of diplomacy which they have at their disposal.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: I should like to make on or two observations on the subject with which this Debate was opened this afternoon, namely, the Saar district, because there is an aspect of the question which I do not think has been sufficiently considered. This is primarily a question concerning the working classes. It is primarily a question concerning miners, and we have had no allusion to that. Here is a population of between 600,000 and 700,000, of whom the vast majority are miners. They are people of exclusively German birth and sympathies, and the real question of importance is what is happening to these people, and how they are getting on. As a matter of fact, we might very well question why there should be a League of Nations or a so-called League of Nations occupation at all. The hon. Member for
Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) put the case from the point of view of France and of the need that France should be paid. So far as coal is concerned, there is no justification for handing over the Saar district, or, rather, the Saar mines, to France, because there was another provision altogether in the Treaty, not dealing with the Saar district at all, under which Germany was obliged to pay France for the whole extent of the damage, so far as coal was concerned, which she had suffered in the War. Germany was to pay, I think, 20,000,000 tons, or such a sum as was necessary to make up the difference between the coal that France was getting and the coal that France would have got but for the damage wrought by the German forces in the War. The handing over of the Saar mines was entirely in addition to that.
The important thing, however, for the moment is the condition of affairs actually prevailing there, and those who have tried to follow the facts of the case know that these people are living under a state of affairs in which their liberties are trampled under foot every day, in which they have no kind of political rights, in which they have to be taxed without being represented, in which the so-called Council is a Council of a purely advisory character, with no powers whatsoever, and, as we have heard to-day, liable to be overridden, and, in fact, overridden, at every point by a Commission presided Over by a French Chairman, and supported, not, be it remember, by a local force, as was provided by the Treaty, but by a gigantic French force. I think it was the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) who made an intervention, saying that there was a military occupation going on. He received no answer, but in substance his intervention eactly described the situation. Here is a great military occupation going on, not by the League of Nations at all, not under the Treaty at all, because the Treaty says that you have to have a force formed of the population of the Saar itself. There is nothing of the kind. The French troops began, I think, speaking from recollection, at 2,000 or 3,000. They rose to 4,000, and have now risen to 10,000 men, for a wretchedly small district as regards size, and for a population, as I have said, of considerably under 1,000,000. Moreover, as I am reminded, they have
their wives and families with them quartered on the country.
There is another aspect of this situation. I am sorry the President of the Board of Education is not here, because I should have liked to ask him why he ignored the vital factors in this question. He told us that there was a strike going on. He said so incidentally, and it has been incidentally commented upon by other speakers. But the strike is the whole essence of the matter. Why is there a strike? Why has there been a strike for ten or twelve weeks past in the Saar mines? I will give one very obvious reason. The Saar mines have been taken over by the French Government. It is a very bad example of nationalisation, and I would not commend it to my friends in this country. It is worked by the Government. Nationalisation does not work very well by one Government in the territory of another Government, and under conditions such as are obtaining in the Saar. Here you have the mines carried on by the French Government, and what wages do they pay to the miners? They pay to the miners 16 francs a day. How does that compare with the wages the miners are getting in the coal mines of France? In the coal mines of France they are getting, on the average, 25 francs a day. In the Saar mines, where you have a German population, exploited and forced as far as possible to work by an alien Government supported by an alien Army, they are paid 9 francs a day less than in France, and that is why they went on strike, or, at least, that is one of the reasons. I do not say it is the only one. There is absolutely nothing political about it. The President of the Board of Education told us that he was informed—he seems, by the way, to be singularly simple in what he believes—that this strike was not economic, but was in reality of a political character. It was nothing of the kind. I am not speaking merely on my own authority. The "Times" correspondent who was there declared in so many words that the strike was not a political strike at all, but arose on the question of wages, on the question of these German miners being exploited for the benefit of the French Government. That was the way in which it began. Afterwards, we are told, political elements came in. That, I see, has been denied,
but, if they did come in, it is certainly nothing to be surprised at.
There is one other feature in the situation which, again, has never been alluded to in the Debate. The currency of the country was, of course, the German currency. A very definite and deliberate policy is now being pursued of substituting the French currency, the franc, for the mark. I will not go into the details of that. On the face of it, of course, it might not make very much difference if the alteration in currency were compensated by alterations in wages and prices and so forth; but it is, at any rate, the opinion of the German miners in the Saar that the substitution of the franc is seriously damaging to them, that they cannot buy what they need for their tables day by day on account of this change in the currency. That is one side of the matter, but this change in currency is regarded, and not, I think, without reason, as part of a policy for bringing about an economic union with France, destined to lead up to a political union. I say I think that it is not without reason, because, not very long ago, a certain M. Dariac, well known in connection with the Ruhr, made a report on the Saar in which he recommended this very economic union of the Saar district with France. I need hardly say that that was quite contrary to the Treaty of Versailles. M. Dariac is very well known for his report, sent officially to M. Poincaré, on the objects and methods of occupying the Ruhr and the advantages that might be gained therefrom. That was a report, as hon. Members will recollect, issued before the occupation of the Ruhr actually took place, but advocating the main policy which was afterwards carried out. This same gentleman is recommending something similar for the Saar, and that is one of the reasons which are causing the dissatisfaction, anxiety and agitation among the miners of the Saar. Again I say that, if an economic strike takes on a political character, in view of a policy such as that, and of preparations such as these, I venture to think that there is nothing very striking in its taking on such a character. That brings me to the decree, of which so much has been said in this debate. Hon. Members who introduced this subject confined themselves entirely to the question of the decree. What is the explanation of the
decree? It is designed to suppress and to meet the trouble and agitation caused by the events I have described, and it is regarded by the Saar miners very largely as introduced in order to stifle criticism and discussion on this policy of economic union with France which is being introduced little by little and surreptitiously. That is what they believe to be the reason for the introduction of this scandalous and unexampled piece of repression of free speech and personal liberty.
With regard to the Ruhr, I would say what I have said with regard to the Saar. The primary question of interest and importance is what is happening to the workers who are living in the Ruhr. That is the thing that matters, and as I have seen it on two visits with my own eyes, I naturally feel very strongly about it. The hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harms-worth) has said something about the smooth and easy working of this occupation of the Ruhr. He certainly would not say so if he had been there. He has ignored the fact that there prevails a reign of terror among the workers. He did not even pay any regard to the fact that a very large number of them have been shot down. The number amounts, if I have added up the figures rightly, to 52 who have already been killed, the majority of them working men, generally on the way to or from their work, suspected for aught I know of some evil intention or other, but in many cases with no overt act proved against them whatsoever, but simply shot as they were going about in the ordinary course of their business. That culminated in the event that happened at Krupps Works, where no fewer than 14 mechanics were shot outright.
That is only the beginning of things. Vast numbers have been expelled. We talk glibly of people being expelled. What does it mean to be expelled? These people are mostly railway men living in a humble way and suddenly, without warning, they and their wives and children are turned out of their homes without the slightest preparation for getting them away, and this has taken place in thousands of cases. Very often their furniture has been turned out into the street and they are not allowed to carry off things with them when they leave the Ruhr district. That is a reign of terror, and if it happens in thousands of cases it
naturally spreads all round and there is a feeling of anxiety which hangs like a dark cloud over everyone. People dare not speak their opinions in the street, through fear of getting into trouble. These are only one or two of the factors which are contributing to make the lives of the miners, railwaymen and engineers of the Ruhr district lives of profound misery and anxiety.
I cannot share the optimism and contentment that were expressed by the hon. Member for Thanet. He endeavoured to defend the attitude of the French Government by saying it was simply an attitude of business. If that be his idea of business I can only say, God help us if we ever have to live under a régime of business. But, as a matter of fact, it is not business. By business I understood him to mean that the French Government is there to obtain payment. If the French Government was there to obtain payment some of us might feel rather differently on the matter, but their conduct hitherto does not suggest that they are there to obtain payment. It does not suggest that the payment of these reparation claims is their real object. If the restoration of the devastated districts was their object why did they not accept the repeated offers of the German Government to restore, the devastated districts direct? Those offers are often forgotten. They were perfectly precise, particularly the offers made in 1920 in connection with the Spa Conference, and they were repeated more than once. Not only were they offers made by the German Government, but they were offers made on the basis of conferences which had taken place between the French and German trade unions in the trades concerned with the building and reconstruction of these devastated areas. They were not general, they were not vague, they were perfectly precise, they were accompanied by specifications and details of every description and by offers to place alternative plans before the French Government if the original plans were not considered satisfactory. If the French Government wanted payment why did they not accept that?
Last year there were certain arrangements made by the Allies, to be executed by the Reparation Commission, for the delivery of certain goods to France and
the other Allies on demand. I put a question a few days ago to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs on this point and I understood from the answer that the outline of the facts I was asking about was not disputed. The French Government last year was entitled to claim reparations in kind to the amount of somewhere about £47,000,000. Instead of claiming that £47,000,000, as they might have done, they only claimed £13,000,000. I want to know why that was, if it is true that their object is to obtain payment. It is not that the other Allies are in the same position. This is no common feature applying to them as well. The other Allies did demand, within a small amount, the quantity of reparations in kind which were due to them. It was the French Government alone that only demanded out of the £47,000,000 to which it was entitled £13,000,000. If that is the position how is it possible to claim that the payment of reparations is the first if not the only object of the French Government?
I have always used in this connection the expression "French Government." I do not say France. I do not say the French people. I distinguish between them. We are in a very difficult position on this side of the House. We have the utmost desire to be in close contact with the French people and the representatives of the French workers, and when we are told we express ourselves critically about France it is not true. We express ourselves critically of the French Government. The fact that you have sympathy with the French people makes it doubly difficult to have sympathy with the French Government, because it is not standing for the interests of the French people in the main, or not, at least, for their interests as we conceive them. We conceive their interest to be the reconstruction of their devastated area, and the rebuilding of their ruined villages. I know what these are. I have been through them. I have done my best to understand the feelings and the psychology of the French workers and peasants in the matter, but it is not they who are benefited. The policy that is being pursued is not helping them to get their cottages rebuilt or their villages restored. That is the difficulty of finding a formula which may express real sympathy with France when we are obliged to deal, in
the main, with the policy of a Government which does not seem to us to be acting in the interests of the French people.
We have to face the problem of reparation, and we speak as if it were an extraordinarily difficult problem to solve. I contend that, in itself, it is not difficult to solve. In itself, it is, in the state that it has now reached, comparatively simple. Let me remind the Committee of the figures as they stand now. Germany has offered, roughly speaking, of course, with qualifications, £1,500,000,000. That is ridiculed in many quarters as very small and absurd. Will hon. Members keep the figure in mind, and realise, on the other hand, what are the demands? The demands of France, which we all agree are the important things in this matter, amount, in practice, to less than £1,500,000,000. That is a fact that is not always realised. It has been said—I will not say in the official communications of the Government, but in a communication which they will not repudiate—that what France is interested in is not the £6,600,000,000, but the "A" and "B" Bonds. The last portion of that £6,600,000,000, provided they are treated in a certain way by us, they would be prepared to give up, I mean the remaining "C" Bonds, which they do not really take seriously. The parts they are interested in are the "A" and "B" Bonds of £2,500,000,000. That is the figure for all the Allies; that is not the French share. The French share is 52 per cent., or £1,300,000,000, and not £2,500,000,000. Therefore, it comes down to this, that, at the bottom, what the French Government is interested in at the present moment by itself, if it wants reparation at all, is £1,300,000,000, roughly speaking, in pounds sterling; and Germany has offered £1,500,000,000.
I anticipate that ridicule will be poured upon me for speaking in this way. I shall be told, "You are leaving out all the other Allies; you are leaving out Great Britain." Frankly, I am leaving out Great Britain. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] It is a very important point, and I hope to be able to convince the hon. Member. The British claim, as regards by far the greater part, is a claim for pensions and allowances. The agreement made between the Allies, on the one side, and Germany, on the other,
before the Armistice was concluded, was an agreement which excluded that claim. Not only is that my opinion but it is the opinion of lawyers and business men who have written or spoken on the subject. The claim for reparation, according to that agreement, was a claim in which pensions and allowances should not have been included. It was a claim for injury done to civilians. The claim for actual damage constitutes by far the greater part of the French claim, and on these benches we have every sympathy with it, on the ground that it is a claim for the restoration of actual damage. By far the greater part of the British claim is a claim for pensions and allowances, which is a distinct breach of faith on the part of this country—a breach of the agreement on the basis of which the Armistice was concluded.
That is the first reason for advocating, as I do, the renunciation of that British claim. Even if there were not that legal argument, that more than legal argument, that moral argument of good faith, there would still be reason enough to make this renunciation. Britain would gain from the material point of view far more from bringing about a real and final settlement of this question, bringing about peace and the possibility of disarmament, and putting an end to our quarrels with France as well as our quarrels with Germany—Britain would gain far more from doing that than by pressing for this claim, year after year, and perhaps never getting it in the end. I believe that the same is true when we come to the question of inter-Allied debts, and that we should gain more by the renunciation of debts which are in any case problematical. We gain more by the renunciation of debts than by keeping the sore open and by keeping the trouble and disturbance continually going on.
I am not suggesting for a moment that this attitude of renunciation—for it is from a certain point of view renunciation—should be our attitude, without any qualification or condition. This renunciation could be made and ought to be made as part of a general settlement, in which we obtain a quid pro quo, and a thorough and substantial quid pro quo for what we renounce, and that should be the complete withdrawal of all the armies of occupation from the Rhine, the Ruhr and the Saar, and, in addition, a
complete revision on international lines, on European plus American lines, of the whole of the Treaty of Versailles; a revision from top to bottom of those provisions of the Treaty which have brought us into the trouble in which we are at the present time. I am sorry to have detained the Committee so long over this problem, but I feel that we have now, in the situation that exists—and it has been emphasised by this debate—a new opportunity of going one step further in this problem. We have a chance of doing something new. The British Government is going to declare its opinion and to say something new on the subject. We have a chance of bringing to an end the deplorable and dangerous situation which exists, and in bringing it to an end we may possibly bring peace to a distracted Europe.

Captain BERKELEY: My hon. Friend who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not follow him further in his very interesting exposition of the reparation problem; a very important problem, and a problem which is germane to much that I wish to say. He has recalled to us, in a very vivid manner, the bitter controversy over the question of the admissibility or non-admissibility of the claim for pensions and other kindred matters. If the Committee will permit me to do so, I am anxious to invite its attention to certain aspects of the earlier part of the Debate on the League of Nations. I have been intimately associated with the work of the League of Nations ever since its inception, and before its inception, and I have seen these difficulties growing up and growing larger, and, I am sorry to say, threatening the peace of Europe as they grew. First, however, may I express my regret that the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) has been compelled to leave his place, because whilst he was speaking—I do not wish to say anything in an uncivil sense—I was unable to resist the conclusion that he was not very familiar with the subject which he elected to discuss.
His reference to the submission of the problem of reparations to a body composed of all the members of the League, including Panama, may have struck him as an extremely amusing illustration, but it was not the proposal of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchen, nor was it the
proposal of the right hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher). The proposal was that the Government should call an immediate meeting of the Council of the League to deal with these two great kindred problems, the Saar and the Ruhr, and there was no question of invoking the assistance of Panama or any other members of the League except those on the Council. Nor did I follow him in his interesting remarks upon the question of how far British industry and business have been affected by the French action. As he sees it, apparently, British industry has almost derived profit from the French occupation of the Ruhr. I would ask him if he considers that a state of circumstances which brings about an enormous increase in the price of coal, which the exports of coal from this country to Germany necessitated by the French occupation of the Ruhr has produced, is beneficial to the trade of this country? As an hon. Member on the other side interjected, it involves all the iron and steel trades of the country. Not many days ago we were discussing the building trade in relation to the cost of materials for houses. One of the principal factors in the price of materials is the cost of light castings. Nobody will say that light castings are likely to be reduced in price if the price of coal is stimulated as a consequence of French action in the Ruhr.
That, however, is somewhat by the way. I would like to associate myself warmly with almost all that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. J. Butler) on the question of the Saar Valley, but he raises a point upon which I think it is only fair to the Council that we should have a little further light, as to the nomination of the French member of the Governing Commission to be Chairman of that body. I happen to recollect the circumstances in which that appointment was made. It was made at the first executive meeting which the Council of the League had. The previous meeting, which took place in Paris, was a purely formal affair, at which criticisms and good wishes were exchanged. The first executive meeting at which any important business was considered was the meeting in St. James's Palace, which took place about 15 days after the League had come into being. At that meeting the French member of the Saar Valley Commission was proposed
as Chairman. That was the time when the Saar Valley Commission was constituted.
While I should be the last to deny that in the event it has proved to be a choice of questionable wisdom, yet it is not quite fair to the Council of the League to condemn it too severely for the first executive action which it was called upon to take. There was a strong reason why the Council should appoint the French member to the Chair. That reason, which was put forward by those who proposed the name of the Frenchman, and which at the time impressed me as being very plausible, was that the Treaty, in so far as it deals with the Saar, lays down that the administration is to be for the purpose of allowing the French to exploit the mines so as to repay themselves for the devastation in the coalfields of Northern France, and that French Customs régime is by the Treaty imposed upon the area. It was argued—I do not say that the argument was sound but it was certainly plausible at the time—that since the President of the Governing Commission is entrusted with executive functions, while the Commission is not sitting, it would be a proper thing that a Frenchman should be appointed to the post, because of the very difficult and complicated questions of French customs and administration of law which would be bound to arise from day to day. The Committee should consider this in arriving at their judgment as to how far the League should be condemned for that initial act.
But when we come down to the events of three weeks ago, when the Council of the League was sitting I find it very hard to accept the defence which the President of the Board of Education put forward for the action of the Council. It seems to me that if the Council of the League is going to acquiesce in that kind of what I may call panicky legislation on the part of its Governing Commission it is high time that the whole queston was reviewed afresh. The defence of the Presdent of the Board of Education is that the Council could not disregard the views of the man on the spot. To a certain extent I suppose that that is so, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University pointed out, why could they not have checked the information,
even if they had not access to all those Foreign Offices to which they have access? Is it beyond the wish of the Council of the League of Nations to devise means of checking information put before it by its administrative Commission on the Saar? That was a defence which should not be allowed to hold water. Suppose that the Chairman of the Governing Commission had proposed in exactly the same decree that the penalty should be penal servitude for life instead of five years, or suppose it to be the death penalty, the decree would not be one whit more ridiculous by the imposition of a penalty of that kind. Surely the Council of the League should not have sat silent and accepted such a decree without further investigation. I very much hope that the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who doubtless will reply at a later stage, will consider whether there is not a valid objection to the attitude taken up by the Council on this matter.
I do not know how far it is in order to refer to the past action of the Council. Certainly I have no wish to criticise unfavourably the proceedings of the Minister, because from all I can ascertain he seems to have carried out his very difficult task in an extremely tactful and statesmanlike way, but I think that it is relevant to point out that there have been previous meetings of the Council at which issues—not this particular issue, but quite as serious—have been raised, and that a strong line by the British representative has had a very great effect in determining the decision to which the Council came. I quite appreciate the fact that as he was acting as President the task of the President of the Board of Education was made very much more difficult. But I would like the Committee to bear in mind that our responsibility on this body is as heavy as, if not heavier than, that of any other State, because the influence—I have seen the Council at work—wielded by the British representative on the Council is very formidable and strong, and rightly so. That brings me to a criticism of the manner in which the Governments which attend the Council of the League are represented upon it. Again I preface what I have to say by dissociating myself altogether from any adverse criticism of the Minister. I would like the Government to consider whether the real intention with regard to the Council of the
League, especially when it is dealing with these important issues, is not that the representative of the Powers concerned should be either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary. There really is a point of substance in that.
9.0 P.M.
When a Cabinet Minister who is not responsible for the control of our Foreign Affairs and is not the Prime Minister attends as our representative an international conference abroad, particularly an international conference of this kind, he is bound to consider himself to a great extent hampered by the instructions that he has received in advance. I do not gather that in this particular case the instructions to the right hon. Gentleman went very far. We can hardly blame him—I certainly do not blame him—if he found a difficulty in deciding to take a strong line, even an anti-French line, with the European situation and our relations with France in the state in which they are at present. Had it been the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secrtary who attended this conference, that difficulty would have been entirely removed, because the Foreign Secretary is perfectly capable of taking an independent judgment upon a matter of foreign politics, and to justify that judgment afterwards to his colleagues, and, of course, the Prime Minister, as the head of the Government, can take any decision he pleases, subject to the same qualification, that he justifies it afterwards to his colleagues.
Our case is the best case that you can make for the representative of any Power on the Council. But when you take the case of France you find that she is not represented by a Cabinet Minister at all. The representative of the French Republic at the last Council meeting was, for the first two days, a very distinguished diplomat. I think he is a Minister Plenipotentiary. At a later stage his place was taken by a distinguished Academician and historian, M. Hanotaux. Neither of them is a member of the Government. Therefore, if our Minister was restricted, how much more should the French representative be restricted through the instructions which he received? The Belgian representative was a very distinguished statesman who was at one time Foreign
Minister of Belgium, but now no longer holds office. The Italian representative for the great part of the time was an ex-Ambassador. He holds no official position. The representatives of many of the—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that that subject is hardly in order on this Vote. The hon. Member is perfectly in order in suggesting that the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should have gone to Geneva, but he cannot argue that the French Prime Minister ought to have gone.

Captain BERKELEY: The representation of other powers on the Council of the League is likely to be very powerfully affected by the status of the British representative, and if our Government would set the example of sending the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister, I believe the example would be quickly followed by other Powers. This particular question of the Saar, if the most serious of the issues raised at the Council, was by no means the only question raised and by no means the only contentious question raised. There was, for instance, the question of entrusting the interests of members of the community of the Saar to the French Government when they are abroad. That is a point subsidiary to the main question, but it is an important point. It is a point which has called for repeated protests from the German Government, and it is a decision as to the legality of which I am by no means satisfied. I have very little doubt that the advisers of the League Council in this case may not have been unconnected with the advisers whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) dealt with so severely in connection with the advice they gave about this particular Decree.
The Council adopted a resolution instructing the Secretary-General to communicate to the German Government a copy of a note from the Saar Governing Commission, together with a copy of a Report affecting the treatment abroad of inhabitants of the Saar basin. That is the reply of the Council of the League to a formal diplomatic protest entered by the German Government against the interests of these people being committed to France while abroad. What attitude
did the British Government instruct its representative to take on this particular point? There was another question as to which some kind of protest is called for. When they came to discuss an extension of the service of the gendarmerie, M. Branting, who seems always to be compelled to take the responsibility for ventilating questions affecting the interests of the inhabitants of the Saar, pointed out that, although the garrison had been reduced to about 2,000 men and the black battalion had been removed in consequence of protests, the garrison had recently been increased again to 4,000 men. That was a matter which required investigation, and I was rather surprised to find that apparently no attention was paid to it by our representative.
Another very important question which has been discussed at the Council, and which has been to some extent shelved, but which will recur, and on which the policy of the Government is highly important, is the question of the Hungarian minorities in Rumania. Anyone who studies the agenda of the recent Council meetings and read the minutes will be struck by the manner in which the quarrels of the Balkans are once again beginning to monopolise the attention of Europe. It is a most serious problem. In the case of Rumania and the Magyars, complaints are being made to the League that the Rumanian Government, in defiance of its pledges under the Minority Treaties, is expropriating Magyar proprietors. It is stated that the law of Rumania, the internal law of the country which refers to all Rumanian subjects, renders them liable on certain terms to be expropriated, provided they are compensated. But the plea put forward on behalf of the Magyar minority is that they are being expropriated by the Government and are not receiving any compensation. This question bristles with troubles for the future. That is the kind of high-handed act which may very well result, first in strained relations between Rumania and Hungary, and finally in outbreaks of violence, and I was sorry to see that the question was not grappled with promptly and firmly by the Council at its last meeting, but was deferred to a further meeting.
I have no wish to make any imputation against the French, but it is an unfortunate fact that the attitude adopted by the
Rumanian representative at the Council of the League, received very strong support from the French, and although the Japanese representative endeavoured to bring about some kind of compromise, it ultimately fell through. The matter has been held over to the next agenda, and I hope the Government will be able to give an assurance that at the next ordinary meeting of the Council—I do not suggest they should put it into the extraordinary agenda of a meeting such as we are pressing for to-day—but that at the next meeting of the Council they will see that the case of the Magyars is properly investigated and that justice is done. Whilst discussing the question of minorities, I should like to ask the Under-Secretary a question which bears upon the feasibility of these Minority Treaties, and which will go to show how far they can really protect racial and religious minorities. It is with regard to the status of Jews in Poland. I think it is true to say that before the Minority Treaties were negotiated there had not for years been a Jewish representative in either of the Chambers of the Polish Legislature. Is it correct to say that as a result of the protection extended to these minorities in Poland, and I believe very loyally observed by the Poles, that there are now a number of Jews in both Chambers, exercising legislative functions. [Laughter.]

Mr. J. JONES: Where are they not?

Captain BERKELEY: For some reason the mention of Jews always seems to provoke laughter.

Mr. J. JONES: And sometimes tears.

Captain BERKELEY: The question of the status of the Jews in Poland has been a very serious and most thorny problem in the past. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Charles Buxton) who knows far more about the subject than I do, will agree with me it has been a most vexatious problem. If the Minority Treaties have been able, in the case of Poland, to bring about a real measure of protection for these people, I hope the Government will find a way of utilising the same Treaties so as to give real protection to minorities in the Balkans. I am sure if they are applied in the Balkans as they have been applied in other States, the difficulties which exist there will disappear. I feel I have intruded on the
time of the Committee for longer than I intended and I should like to express my thanks for the patient hearing which has been granted me and to conclude by expressing the hope that the Government will find it possible to accept the request put forward by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) by those on this side of the House, to submit the problems of reparation and of the Saar to an extraordinary meeting of the Council of the League to be summoned immediately.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Morel) expressed the opinion that the view was held by some people in the City of London that Germany was not capable of paying the £1,600,000,000 which she has offered. It is an extraordinary revelation to me that Germany has offered to pay something which she cannot pay. My knowledge of the Germans, and not of the Germans alone but of human nature does not bear out that view. People do not, as a rule, offer to pay more than they can afford. Very often it is the other way about, and they offer to pay less. But it is news to me that a person should come forward and offer to pay more than he has got the means of paying. The late Prime Minister appointed a Financial Committee, consisting of some very eminent members of the financial group in the City of London, to ascertain what, in their opinion, Germany could pay, and those gentlemen said, as nearly as my recollection goes, that Germany could pay £20,000,000,000, which is very different from the £1,600,000,000 they have offered. I have never agreed—not that my opinion is worth much on the subject, nor, indeed, anybody else's opinion—but I have never agreed that Germany could afford to pay such an enormous sum as £20,000,000,000. I was always under the impression, however, that it was quite possible for Germany to pay—with very great inconvenience to herself — a sum which might approximate to something like £8,000,000,000 or £10,000,000,000.
As hon. Members know, the City of London consists of a very large number of people, but, like every other place where people are congregated together, there are differences of opinion, and, therefore, it is absurd to say that the City of London thinks this, or the City of London thinks that. All that you can
say is that the majority of people in that part of the Empire think so and so. As far as I myself have been concerned, I have always spoken for the alliance with France, and I have always said that Germany should be made to pay the utmost she could be made to pay, and up to the present I have never yet had a single letter from any elector in the City of London—I probably shall get one now—commenting upon my action. The hon. Member for Dundee also said that Germany was crushed, and I ventured to say, "Hear, hear!" I do not know that that was a disorderly interruption, but the hon. Member said that my interruption did not add to the clarity of the Debate. I should have said that it rather did, and I cannot help wondering why the hon. Member should object to my approving of his statement that. Germany was crushed.
I do not know whether hon. Members opposite have read the Life of Mr. Page, the American Ambassador here during the War. I have read it. There are two volumes of most interesting reading, and Mr. Page by no means was always in favour of England. To a great extent he was, but by no manner of means always. He sometimes saw defects in which I thought he was mistaken, but Mr. Page was behind the scenes, and he knew what was going on, and he was a man, not only of great ability, but of great courage and great single-mindedness. In this life there is reproduced a letter which was sent to Lord Bryce by an Englishwoman who had married a German officer, and this letter was written, as far as my recollection goes, in October, 1914. Lord Bryce sent this letter to Mr. Page, and the letter said that the writer regretted very much the trend of events, that her house was constantly being occupied by German officers, both naval and military, and that they one and all said that before Christmas 10 German army corps would be in England. And what were they going to do when they got here? [An HON. MEMBER: "What would we do with them?"] We have done very little at present. What were they going to do when they got here? They were going to destroy every single city in this country which had produced munitions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Good for the dynamite trade!"] I do not know whether it
would be good for trade or not, but we are not discussing that. We are discussing the existence of the British Empire, and we are discussing these men who laid down their lives in defence of that Empire, quite regardless of whether they lost, or made, money. Not only were they going to destroy every single city in this country in which—

Major PAGET: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Newbold) entitled to whistle in this House?

Mr. NEWBOLD: I was not conscious that I was whistling. That is the hon. and gallant Member's imagination after 9 o'clock.

Sir F. BANBURY: They were not only going to destroy every city in this country which had made munitions, but they hoped that the men at least would resist, because it would give them an excuse for killing all the able-bodied men in England, and because they thought that would facilitate their intention, which was to make this country a German colony, which would put them on the route to America and enable them eventually to become the masters of the world. Now the same hon. Member for Dundee, who, if my memory serves me right, was a supporter of the enemies of his country in 1914, comes down and talks to me and other Members of this House who have lost their relatives in the War, who did their duty—I am proud of it, that they did their duty. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Newbold), who is laughing, volunteered for the front during the late War.

Mr. NEWBOLD: No, certainly not, but I will in the next, and against you.

Sir F. BANBURY: I wonder the hon. Member is allowed to sit in this House, after he has made that shameful declaration.

The CHAIRMAN: Earlier in the evening, I asked the hon. Member for Motherwell not to interrupt, and I must repeat that now.

Mr. NEWBOLD: I notice you have asked the Communist only.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member persists in interrupting, I shall have to ask him to leave the House.

Mr. NEWBOLD: I was simply speak-to you. That is not interrupting.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think we need be under any obligations to the Germans, in order to assist them to do again what they did eight years ago. There may come in the question of whether or not we are injuring our trade. I am quite willing to admit that trade is one of the most important matters which any Government have to consider. There are circumstances, however, which overrule that consideration. I remember that, before the War, there were very great complaints made of German goods being dumped upon this country, and I remember that it was said that the result, was that our workmen were thrown out of employment, because the ordinary person in Great Britain preferred to buy for, say, 1s. a German article which could not be produced in this country under, say, 1s. 4d. or 1s. 5d. [Interruption.] I never can understand the mentality of hon. Members opposite. What do they think? They, apparently, are under the impression that if German goods are allowed to come to this country—and we must remember that at the present moment the Germans would be very much advantaged, much more than they were eight or nine years ago, by the low rates of exchange, and that therefore quite irrespective of the fact that German workmen work much harder than our workmen, much longer hours, and for less wages—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—notwithstanding that fact, in addition to that fact, they would be advantaged by the lowness of the exchange. What good is this to anybody in this country, except a wicked capitalist like myself, who does not work or produce anything, who lives in a state of idleness on the labour of the supporters of hon. Members opposite, and who is going to gain by being able to buy German goods at a less cost than the same goods can be produced by English labour in this country? I may be a reactionary Tory.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. Might I be allowed to ask what this has got to do with the subject?

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman always makes an adequate connection.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: rose—

Sir F. BANBURY: Is it a point of Order?

Mr. SPENCER: Just a question. I want to make reference to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the German workers worked longer and harder. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that one hon. Member came back from the Ruhr, and stated that there was no poverty in Germany?

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not say worked harder. I said longer, but I will say harder. But we are not talking about the Ruhr. We are talking about Germany itself. I am not at all obliged to admit that everything a single hon. Member says who happens to have gone over for a short time to a foreign country is right. I should like to address a few words to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I understand, is now leading the Government. My quarrel with the Government is that they have not taken proper steps to back up our Allies and France. My belief is that if the Foreign Secretary, when France first went into the Ruhr, had told the Germans that we were going to support France and that, if necessary, we would send our men there, I believe Germany would have given in at once, and we should have had none of this trouble. After all, we are the victors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] I do not think there is any question at all about it. It may be a question for hon. Members opposite. The question for us is that we ought to have backed up France. We have no sympathy with Germany, who brought us into the most disastrous War that ever occurred—I will not say in the history of the world, but within the last 500 years—a war which they carried out in a disgraceful and most unsportsmanlike manner.

Mr. T. SHAW: I do not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman. I will only concern myself by making an appeal to the Government to take definite steps with regard to the Ruhr. I appeal to the Government to talk in a distinct manner to France, because we have a right to talk to France. When that country was fighting, we fed France with men and food and clothes and guns. [An HON. MEMBER: "And with money."] We stood by the side of France all the way through, and we have a right to ask
France to consider Britain, to consider the British point of view, to consider British interests, and to ask her to treat us as an equal, not as a third-rate Power, and to be consulted on matters connected with the settlement of the peace of Europe. I have personally as much regard for France as any hon. Member or right hon. Member in this House. I love the country, its language and people, but I believe that the French Government policy is fatal to the interests of the people of France, fatal to the interests of peace in Europe, and fatal, in particular, to the interests of the working people of this country. May I call attention to one of the points in the right hon. Gentleman's speech? He said that if Germany began to send goods here, our workers would be out of work. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that we have something like 1,500,000 unemployed in this country, and we could not get very much worse if the trade of Europe were restored. The maddest idea that any politician can hold is the idea that you can dislocate Europe and in some way benefit yourself.
I leave that subject and turn to the question of the present position as it now applies to Germany. The hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) talks as if Germany knew what she had to pay, and ought to pay. My complaint it that the Government have not devised a policy which tells Germany what she is to pay and when the troops will be withdrawn and on what conditions. At the present time here is a nation of people not knowing what they are expected to pay—the sum has never been fixed—not knowing if the troops will be withdrawn. That is the position of affairs. It is not the position of a brave victor, it is not the position of a generous victor, it is not the position of the ordinary idea of an English victor, that when the enemy is crushed he should be jumped upon. That is not a British principle. It never was and never will be, and the people of this country are revolting against it. [HON. MEMBERS: No!"] During the War it was the proud boast of Members of this House and people outside that our principles were better than German principles, that we were not cruel and degraded. I object, as a Briton, to being made responsible for a policy of oppression and cruelty which in other countries we
condemn. That is the opinion I hold. No hon. Member opposite can quote one statement in which the French have spoken of the total withdrawal of troops from German territory. These are the facts of the case and I hope hon. Members who say "No" will have a chance to prove that I am wrong. I have made some little study of the subject myself and I have not been able to find a definite declaration by a responsible French politician as to the total amount Germany is expected to pay, or as to the conditions on which the troops would be withdrawn.
As regards the Ruhr, frankly, I am pessimistic about the position. It is true that feelings are tremendously excited, and the troops themselves are not out of danger if feelings get the better of those living in the country. It seems to be thought that those miners in the Ruhr are men who are accustomed to military discipline. Will hon. and right hon. Gentlemen believe me when I assure them that even when Prussian militarism was in its heyday it could not keep a garrison in the Ruhr, for the miners would not have it. France and Belgium are trying now to inflict on a population foreign troops that in time of Peace would not bear their own. It is not true to say that the German Government is responsible for the action of the workmen in the Ruhr. The people responsible for the action of the workmen in the Ruhr are the working men themselves, through their organisations, their trade unions, and their political parties. They are the responsible people. Let France deal with the Government of Germany to-morrow if she likes, and the Government of Germany can submit, and the odds are that when the German Government have submitted, those miners who never would bear soldiers in their midst will refuse to work under French bayonets, and I admire them for it!
Let me say a word about the results to France. Everyone wants to see Northern France and Belgium restored, but what is France getting by her policy? What is it bringing to France? What is taking place is this, that France is spending huge sums of money every week, while her furnaces in Lorraine are closing down, and she is going to be forced to tax her people, a thing she has never dared to do—I am speaking of the Government. Then perhaps the French people will take a leaf out of the British
book, and begin to consider whether it is not better to exercise reason than to give play to feelings of vengeance! France cannot pay her debt to us, but she can spend untold millions in the occupation of the Rhineland and the Ruhr. I would not think quite so much about it if these occupations were conducted on reasonable lines. Anyone who knows the circumstances in the Rhineland knows that the demands made on the Germans by the. French forces have been demands that no reasonable man could justify. Can any man reasonably justify taking uncles, aunts, cousins and sisters and planting them on a conquered population? Can any man justify the demand for hundreds of thousands of wine glasses; thousands of ladies' toilet sets; thousands of ladies' night-tables, and those other articles of such intimate personal use that one does not speak of them in public? Can any man reasonably justify demands of that kind made on a conquered population? The facts are obvious. If any hon. or right hon. Gentleman wants the facts they are easy of access. There is no question about the facts. Our own forces in the Rhineland can give the particulars. Those who need can easily get the information that I am now providing for them.
I think we ought to recognise that Germany of the present day is not the Germany of 1914. The Germany of 1914 was a Germany that lived under the jackboot. Anyone who knew the country in those days knew that before 1914 the civilian was the second class and the military the first. Anybody who has seen the cities, as I saw them, may be able to justify what I am going to say, that the officer swaggering along the road was, if I may use a Northern expression, "the cock o' the walk." All that, I venture to suggest, has now gone. These men have been swept away. The Germany of the present day is a Republic, and the majority of its people desire peace, and are willing to make reparation if they get a fair opportunity of doing so. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, the information of hon. Members may be better than mine. All I can say is that I have taken considerable pains to get mine. I know something of Germany, as I know something of France. I have travelled both countries from end to end, and know a very large number of people
in them. [An HON. MEMBER: "And speak their languages!"] I suggest to the House again that it is unwise to treat the Germany which is a Republic as one might have treated the Germans who formed the Monarchy. I give my own personal experience for what it may be worth. Two years ago the ordinary German that one met in the train, street, or restaurant took the point of view that Germany had lost and that she had got to pay, but that she ought to have a chance of paying. The ordinary conversation in the streets, tram, and train now is: "Let the French take what they can, and our day will come."
France is pursuing a policy for the moment—and I hope our Government will discuss it with her in the most friendly spirit possible—is following a policy that has already alienated America and is rapidly drifting in the direction of alienation in this country. Seventy millions of people nearly, and continually growing in numbers, with well-organised industries on the one hand! On the other hand a country of much less population, not so well organised, not growing in numbers. Why, the thing is inevitable unless reason displaces force! You cannot held those people down for ever by the sword. It is impossible, and the policy that made France desire revenge against Germany is exactly the policy that the French are pursuing and will make the Germans desire revenge. They are trying to make an Alsace-Lorraine in Germany. A more fatal blunder could not be imagined, for the Saar is as much German as London is Britain, and more so. The Rhineland is as utterly German as any part of the world can be. Would it not be better, instead of getting those countries away or attempting to get them away, that arrangements should be made with a new Republic in Germany to give voluntarily—not by force, but voluntarily—guarantees of demilitarisation through the League of Nations, through America as well, rather than to pursue a policy which inevitably will bring Germany finally on the back of France at a time when the Allies, that France had before, are not there, and which will inevitably mean defeat for the country that we fought with from 1914 to 1918!
It is necessary, I think, above all in this that there should be peace in Europe, and that there should be the resumption of
commercial relationships. As it is in this country we can provide only a small proportion of the food that we consume, and unless our people are skilled artisans and sell their goods abroad, unless trade moves freely then there is distress and misery in this country. Hon. Members who know the county of Lancashire well know the distress and misery we have had there for the last few years. Is it not wise, is it not statesmanlike to ask France to adopt a policy which will bring real peace to the world? Or is it wiser and more statesmanlike to ask that a policy should be pursued that is not succeeding, that is developing feelings of hate in a powerful nation, that is preventing the chance of Europe settling down, that is preventing our trade moving, and the chances of our people getting work?
I make an appeal to the Government to use all their efforts in the most friendly way possible to persuade France to adopt a simple principle, namely, that of stating directly what she wants, and on what terms she is prepared to retire. If those terms are not acceptable to Germany then we should ask France to submit her case to friendly neutrals of the expert type who can adjudicate and give a decision. Otherwise, there is no hope of a solution. By the present policy France is bleeding herself white financially as she bled herself white physically during the War. In the occupied territory the troops are like locusts in the land, and they are costing more than any reparations we are likely to get. The true way to proceed is to give Germany a chance of getting on with her task. If the German people are not placed upon their feet industrially then the French towns and villages will remain unbuilt. If France requires additional security then let us ask Germany to give guarantees to the League of Nations that will give the necessary security to France, and thus remove the fear which exists among the French people that in the end the Germans will attack France again. If this is done then there is a chance that houses will be rebuilt in France. I quite agree that France and Belgium towns and villages ought to be restored, but how can they be restored by a nation when every effort is being made to prevent that nation exporting goods, which
is the only way in which she can assist in the restoration of France.
There are only three ways of proceeding. An hon. Member opposite made a speech two or three months ago in which he pointed out with beautiful simplicity and lucidity the only ways in which a nation could make reparations—in the first place, by the payment of gold, which is quite out of the question in the case of Germany; in the second place, by services, and France refuses those services; and thirdly, it could make reparations in goods. Whether those goods come to the country getting the reparations, or whether they are sold in another country and the proceeds transferred does not matter, but that is the only way of the three which I have mentioned in which Germany could really make any substantial reparation. Hon. Members who give this suggestion a moment's consideration must admit that that simple fact admits of no contradiction.
How can reparations be paid unless Germany is given a chance? I appeal to the Govermnent to do their utmost to get all these outstanding and thorny questions, which are now dividing the French and the German people, submitted to an impartial tribunal. In a trade dispute in this country it is often found that the nearer the sides are getting the more violent becomes the language, and often so violent does the language become that neither side will give in because it wants to save its face. It is just possible that in this case both Germany and France desire to save their faces, and a kindly offer of mediation, a friendly offer of services, a policy distinctly and clearly stated, and an absolutely straightforward declaration that the parties should be treated as equals and not inferiors may do a great deal to bring peace into the world. I urge the Government to use every effort not to adopt a policy of neutrality and do nothing, but to point out to France that her policy does not help her at all, but is simply crippling her, and making her poorer, and her only chance of success is to adopt such a policy as is likely to allow the people of France and Germany to live together in amity and in concord.

Colonial Sir CHARLES BURN: I claim to know the German people quite as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite do. I
am aware that the French people have had their country devastated, and bled white, and they firmly believe now that the only way in which they can expect to get anything out of the German nation is by occupying German territory, and they think they can get something back in that way.

Mr. T. SHAW: They are actually getting less back by their occupation, and not more.

Sir C. BURN: I am not going to argue whether the French are right or wrong in their action.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Are they successful?

Sir C. BURN: What I say is that if this country had stood by our Allies when the French occupied the Ruhr, the Germans would have caved in, and would have submitted to whatever terms were imposed upon them. I have no doubt whatever about that. I claim to know the Germans better than the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I have lived more than he has in that country, and I have had more to do with Germany. The French think that, they can get reparations by occupying the Ruhr, and we have yet to see whether they are right in their surmise or not. I am satisfied myself that if we had been with the French in the Ruhr, we should have got reparations and so would the French. As far as the actual reparations that will be paid by Germany are concerned, that is a problem that nobody can solve, but, knowing the German nation as well as I do and from my own experience, I know perfectly well what the state of this country and the countries of our Allies would have been if Germany had been the victors. I know that in this country we should have been bled white and they would not have treated a defeated enemy with the same good feeling as we have shown. They would have had the jackboot on us, and they would have crushed the blood out of our bodies, and moreover they world have taken all our securities and every valuable we possess in this country, and when they had satisfied themselves that they had got the last penny out of Great Britain they would have remained over here and occupied our country for many years to come at our expense.
Perhaps hon. Members opposite do not know what was the attitude of the Germans
for many years before the War. Perhaps they are not aware that the Germans had prepared plans and schemes for occupying every estate and every big house in this country. They knew perfectly well the places they meant to occupy if they had won the War, as they anticipated they would. I know that statement is true, and I believe every word of it. In these circumstances it is for France and Great Britain to put their heads together, to lay down on an equitable basis what Germany can pay, and when that is decided upon, it is up to us to make Germany pay it. Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, who are hand in glove with Germany—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—are always ready to praise any enemies of this country.

Mr. NEWBOLD: What were you doing over there?

Sir C. BURN: The hon. Member asked what I was doing over there. I was staying with the Kaiser. I grant that the situation at this moment is a difficult one, but it is not beyond solution. If we and our Allies work together, and put our heads together, then the sum that Germany is able to pay will be ascertained by expert opinion, and there will be a chance of this country getting some of the reparations that are due to us for all that we have gone through and lost through this war brought on by the Germans.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Sir C. Burn) for being outspoken in his criticisms of this Government. I agree with him that their policy has been neither one thing nor the other. If they were not going to make a protest against what we on this side think is the illegal action of France against the Peace Treaty, they ought to have done the other thing, as the hon. and gallant Member suggests, and have gone the whole hog with France. This policy of neither one thing or another whether applied to Germany, Russia, or any of the other countries, will be our undoing, and I quite agree, to that extent, with the hon. and gallant Member. Otherwise, I am absolutely opposed to his point of view. I am only going to speak on this subject in a moment, and I do not wish to be misunderstood as being not in agreement with the hon. Member for Preston (Mr.
T. Shaw). I agree with every word he said, and because I am only going to spend a sentence on that speech, he must not misunderstand me. We have a special responsibility at this moment to see that Germany is properly treated, because we have disarmed her in war. It is looked upon as the most cowardly thing of all to kill an unarmed prisoner. Germany is exactly in that position with regard to us now. We have beaten her, and insisted upon her disarmament, and now we are specially responsible to see that she gets justice, whatever our feelings towards her for the events of the last few years.
I wish to exercise myself in attempting to turn a searchlight on certain dark places. I want to seek information from the hon. Gentleman who represents the Foreign Office—always an exhilarating exercise on our part in the way of getting information, sometimes successful and sometimes unsuccessful—as to a curious body, which we hear about occasionally, and which seems to work principally in the dark, usually very unsuccessfully, which is known as the Council of Ambassadors. I wish to ask what this Council is; of whom it consists; where it meets; to whom it is responsible; and from whom it gets its directions—I mean, as regards our representative? If he is always our Ambassador in Paris, then that is a very dangerous thing, because, after all, he depends for his success on being persona gratia with the French Government. If that be the case, it would account for the continued success of the French on the Council of Ambassadors, and our almost invariable failure. I wish that the Union of Democratic Control in this country were not quite so pacifist, because I believe they would get a tremendous amount of support. I think their demand for better Parliamentary control over foreign affairs is a very sound one. I support them all the way in that subject, and this example of the Council of Ambassadors is a very striking one. I wish to refer to one or two of its recent activities or, what is still worse, its in-activities. The Council is not set up under the Peace Treaty, and I think it is really no exaggeration when I call it an illegal body. At any rate, we have no control over it in this House. Yet it makes decisions which will affect the future of Europe, and therefore our trade and
security in a very vital way. Take its recent judgment on Eastern Galicia. Eastern Galicia is one more Alsace-Lorraine in Europe, and it is the most probable cause of another great armed conflict in the world.
10.0 P.M.
This question is a very striking one. You have here a country which has been handed over to Poland, lock, stock and barrel. In it, the Poles, are in a distinct minority Even the figures of the Foreign Office Consuls show that the non-Poles are 63 per cent. of the population. The Austrian figures show that the population is 74.4 per cent. Ukranian, 12.3 per cent. Jewish, and 12.7 Polish and the Jews are anti-Polish. Those figures may be exaggerated, but it is a fact that there is a large majority of anti-Poles in that country. One of the causes of the last war was the Pan-Slav movement in Russia, which aimed at incorporating Eastern Galicia in the Ukraine. As long as Russia is Russia, there will be ferment in unredeemed Galicia, which will always be a cause of trouble. We ought to have given the temporary mandate for Eastern Galicia to Austria. No one would have objected, except Poland. The Austrians have always managed to rule, with a fair amount of success; at least, with as much success as alien peoples are usually ruled with. Incidentally, it would have helped Austria. She would have had a market, and it, would have prevented her from falling into the sorry financial state in which she is to-day.
The Eastern Galicians, after the Austrian revolution, formed an army against the Poles, and defeated them. We imposed an Armistice on the Eastern Galicians, on certain well-defined terms. We promised them justice and that the Poles would not be allowed to attack them with their reinforcements, and particularly with Haller's army, which was raised at that time. Haller's army was sent on the distinct understanding it would not be used against the Galicians. The French sent out artillery, and got the Poles to send Haller's army against the Galicians after the Armistice, which was treacherously broken, and they were attacked by the Poles and overrun. Under the Peace Treaty it was arranged that the frontiers of Galicia should be determined, and the so-called Curzon line
was put forward, defining the frontier between Eastern Galician and Poland. After an interminable delay, the matter being in the hands of this Council of Ambassadors all these years, in March this extraordinary decision was come to, by which the Galicians were handed over to the Poles, with only the Polish undertaking that they should be given autonomy, and with no safeguard for the population.
Now there may be in the next few months a movement by Russia against Poland, and whereas, in the past, if we had given Eastern Galicia justice, the Eastern Galicians would have fought to the bitter end against an invasion by the Red Armies, now, I fear, the majority of the Eastern Galicians will welcome the Red Army, and it will be a case of the Polish armies being badly outflanked in Eastern Galicia. I just draw attention to this case, which I think is ridiculously flagrant, and I only wish to add this. There are only, it is true, 5,000,000 Galicians, but we tried to govern Ireland in a similar way in recent years and we failed utterly, and I am sure that where we failed in Ireland the Poles will fail in Eastern Galicia. But there is in Canada a loyal population drawn from this part of the world. There are half a million of persons of Galician descent in Canada. [HON MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Well, the Canadian Government has protested against any unjust treatment of the Eastern Galicians. They have been powerful enough to impress their case on the Canadian Government against the Polish Government. There are 35,000,000 people of the Ukranian race outside Galicia, and as long as their brothers are under Polish rule we need not look for peace in Eastern Europe. That is one result of the malevolent activities, when they are active, of the Council of Ambassadors. The Foreign Office excuses this action by saying that it is the best thing to do in he case.
Memel, under the Council of Ambassadors, was a case of years and years of delay until action was taken by the Lithuanians and the Council of Ambassadors was stirred at last to activity. In Vilna the Ambassadors' Council failed to do anything until the town was sered by a Polish Army under Zilagowski. The case of Upper Silesia is another case of delay
and then violence, and then the matter had to be handed over to the League of Nations. I would very much like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs where we come in in this Parliament? What control have we over this extraordinary body? Where do the expenses of the Council of Ambassadors come from? I think this is a case where Parliament should assert itself. This Council of Ambassadors is an off-shoot from the Supreme Council. The Supreme Council made a fairly complete hash of Europe, and the Council of Ambassadors has done its best to complete that work. This system of diplomatic settlement has been a failure, and as soon as it is abolished and a better system found of settling up post-war Europe the better for everyone concerned.

Mr. MOSLEY: To-night's Debate has impressed me as being one that is very ominous for the Government. It is curious how history repeats itself in politics, for to-night every speech delivered on the back benches from the Conservative side of the House has been an attack upon the policy of the Government. When I find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and the "Morning Post" and all that familiar circle speaking once again in unison and attacking the policy of the Government of the day, one is really led to expect some exciting developments in the very near future such as we witnessed in December last. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is in some danger of following in the footsteps of those many Conservative Leaders who have tried to do something sensible and have been repudiated by their party. On that sad occasion he may derive some consolation from the fact that he will be in good company. His spirit will march into the Elysian fields between the spirits of Canning and Sir Robert Peel, while the rear of that imposing procession will be brought up by the shade of the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain). He may even find somewhere in the background of that galaxy of Conservative shades the pale ghost of the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), still doubtless sword in hand now, also a nebulous wraith-like sword robbed of its terrestial state. It would be sad if the advocates of peace in Europe had to follow in the same sad path as the
advocates of peace in Ireland. It is an extraordinary phenomenon to follow in this matter the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for the City of London. We have all been brought up on the tradition that the right hon. Gentleman is the last of the real individualists left in this House. Yet we find him this evening and always consistently supporting the policy of France. What is the policy of France? The policy of France is the making of money by the imposition of Socialism on another country. The right hon. Gentleman's whole thesis in his political life has been that the adoption of Socialism, the bureaucratic control of industry by the State for its own purposes means ruin for industry and ruin to the State, and yet he says that France, an alien Power, may march into Germany, bureaucratise and control her industries, and impose Socialism from without against the will of her population, and that that is the only way to get money out of Germany and to reap indemnities. How sad it is to observe the descent of the last of the individualists! Has there ever been so great a fall from greatness as that of the right hon. Gentleman, or so great a departure from steadfastness or principles as we have heard this evening?
If I might now refer directly to the subject under discussion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—which, so far, has been but slightly debated from the benches opposite — I have followed the worthy precedent set by the right hon. Gentleman, and in striving to be courteous in following strictly the arguments of my opponents, I was led a little from the point under discussion—our object this evening, as it seems to me, should be to elicit, if possible, from the Government what their foreign policy is. The object in moving this reduction, apart from its condemnation of their attitude upon the question of the Saar Valley, is, as I understand it, to elicit a declaration of policy. It is very difficult to attack the policy of the Government. It is as difficult as attacking some nonexistent phantom, because we really do not know quite what it is. On the Ruhr question, in particular, it has been described by a variety of right hon. Gentlemen and Noble Lords in very ambiguous language. To begin with, the Prime Minister described it as an attitude of
benevolent neutrality. Many weeks, even months, elapsed, and the Foreign Secretary described it as a policy of positive neutrality. Of course, that denoted a marked advance, a perceptible stiffening of the attitude of the Government. A movement from benevolence to positiveness was a great advance, but still the position has not been entirely clarified.
What are the facts of the situation as we observe them to-day? The Government for a very long time said that the psychological moment for action in this question had not arrived, and they attacked and derided every suggestion put forward from this side of the House for a positive and active policy in relation to the question of the Ruhr. Then, at last, they decided that the moment for some action had arrived. After weeks and months of waiting, it was determined that the psychological moment was at length upon us, and the Foreign Secretary of this country saw fit to address to the German Government an invitation to make an offer to France. That offer was made, and that offer was abruptly turned down. Surely, the Government, in assuming responsibility for making that invitation to Germany, had in their minds the possibility of that offer being turned down exactly as it was turned down by France. Surely, we are entitled to ask the Government to state the facts. What is the next move? What do they intend to do? What is their policy? Having assumed upon their shoulders the responsibility for inducing Germany to make an offer to France, which, in the circumstances of the case, as I submit, was bound to be turned down as was almost any offer the Germans might reasonably make—what is their plan? What is their policy, thought out and conceived in advance, as all policies should be? Surely, it is inevitable that any offer made by Germany to France is bound to be rejected, unless extraneous circumstances intervene to effect a settlement.
The facts are so obvious. In January last, it was estimated by the experts of this country that the maximum capacity of Germany to pay was £2,500,000,000. That conception was turned down with derision by the French Government; they would not accept it. It was said that no French Government could accept it and not fall the next day. Since that estimate was made, the French have, in the words of the English Prime Minister, cut
the jugular vein of Germany's industry. People like the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London may think that that is a good way to persuade Germany to pay. It may create a greater willingness to pay, but no one, and certainly not the Government, will argue that it will increase her capacity to pay. It stands to reason, therefore, that, if our estimate in January last of Germany's total capacity was £2,500,000,000, the subsequent proceedings on the part of France must not have increased, but rather decreased, that capacity, and, therefore, France to-day must be faced with the inevitable result of her action in the shape of getting not more, but rather less, than she actually refused to accept in January last. That is a situation, as I see it, which no French Government is likely to accept, and it is useless for the Government of this country and for the right hon. Gentleman to invite Germany to advance offers in the hope that France will accept them, unless they have some policy, by concerted international action, to induce France to take a more reansonable view of the situation. What then is to be the policy of the Government. For the moment you find a complete deadlock in Europe, France unable to yield without loss of prestige, and Germany unable to yield without the loss of her economic existence. If Germany surrenders unconditionally to impossible demands it means her ruin, and Germany says, "If we are to die in any case, we will die fighting." All brave men, if they have to die, prefer to die fighting, and that is a very reasonable and natural attitude for any country to adopt. So you have an absolute deadlock which must somehow be resolved by firm intervention from extraneous sources. What is the plan of the Government? Having taken upon their shoulders the responsibility for this new movement in the great deadlock, surely we should be entitled to hear what that policy is to-night. They have gone so far as to remonstrate with France for her separate action. We have made a gesture, which some may think dignified, but a gesture is not a policy. We must have something more than that if the matter is to be solved. It is no use saying to France, "We are very offended and pained because you have taken separate action."
That is not going to solve the affair of the Ruhr. Some further policy is needed.
It is really after all not so great a catastrophe that England has not been involved in another joint reply with France, based inevitably on an unsatisfactory compromise which does not really express our genuine views. Surely, too, often we purchased allied unity at too great a price. We have seen England dragged helpless, ineffective and reluctant at the wheels of France's chariot. That is not the position for this country to occupy. I am glad in a way that France, by her precipitate action, has avoided putting us once again in the position of being a participant in the dispute. I would rather that we became, not a participant, but an arbitrator in the dispute. I would therefore suggest to the Government that they turn for a joint reply, not to France, but to America. This Note has been addressed to America. It imposes upon America almost as great a moral obligation as upon this country, because it follows in its broad details precisely the lines of the Hughes proposal. The one hopeful fact in this note of Germany is that it definitely accepts the principle of reference of the whole of the great question of reparations to an international and impartial tribunal. That is precisely Hughes proposal, and surely it is open to this country to turn to America and say, "Will you join with us in this attempt to salve from the wreck some of those ideals for which you, as well as we, fought in the War, and also to preserve your European market from final destruction." I think that would be more fruitful than even any immediate invitation such as that issued to America by the noble Lord, immediately to join the League of Nations, for the Americans one sees in this country—I see many, because I am connected with an organisation for that purpose—are unanimous in the opinion that it would be far easier to get America to interpose in the Ruhr dispute than immediately to participate in the League of Nations. As she has assumed some moral responsibility, why cannot England take the responsibility of appealing to her to take joint action with us? If we fail, no harm is done, but if we succeed, immeasurable benefit may be derived. Why should not that attempt be made? The right hon. Gentleman may reply: "America and England and everyone
else may expostulate, but France will take no notice. She does not care. She will proceed with her policy." Then we have other weapons, economic weapons. Why should we not at once use those great economic weapons? Why should not America and England say jointly to France, "We are not going any longer to pay for the wreckage of our foreign markets." Large sums of money are owing by France to this country and America. Why should we continue to release her from those burdens in order that she may pursue objects which are wholly alien to ourselves and America?
Wielding such great economic powers, these two countries, acting in unison, could impose conditions if they thought fit to do it. How could France or any other country in Europe face the united economic hostility of the two great countries of England and America? There are powers within our grasp which might work enormous benefit in the present distressed condition of Europe and the world.
It may well be said that such a policy would not be successful. It must be borne in mind that our policy must have the definite limits of economic sanction: that never again can we contemplate the intervention of force or the adoption of military measures in the internal affairs of Europe. The follies of Europe have been cleansed sufficiently in the blood of our people, and never again will they contemplate or will they tolerate military intervention from this country in the internal affairs of the Continent. When we seriously weigh the economic weapons which are in our hands, who can doubt that they will be sufficient for the purpose? If they fail, it may well be that we shall have to withdraw again into the terrible condition of isolation, bereft of our great foreign markets. We shall not be so rich, but we shall be preserved from any responsibility for the further sabotage of Europe and from entanglements in a future war. It is better to be in isolation than in sheer desolation. If the worst comes to the worst, this country may once again have to turn away from Europe towards the new world, and ultimately call in the new world to redress the balance of the old.
I beg of the Government to develop a definite policy, to create a concrete
conception of what they mean to do, to formulate a plan in advance and pursue it. What is their policy? I heard the Minister of Education blamed this afternoon—although he was not personally attacked—for not taking a more vigorous stand at Geneva. He had an impossible task. He was not expressing his own opinions. He was there to express the views and policy of the English Government, and we ask him to take a firm stand. How can you express a perpetual wobble in firm language? What is the task imposed upon the right hon. Gentleman? We say to him: "Why did not you go to Geneva and there erect a more stable and stately edifice of English policy"? What was his foundation for that edifice? His foundation was the English Cabinet and their policy. You might as well ask him to build a pyramid upon a jelly fish. You want something more solid than this upon which to build the foundations of the new world. You want a policy, a conception, a plan, vigorously thought out and vigorously executed. [Interruption.] I hear some familiar voices. Indeed we have all that great eminent band of gentlemen who perform the original function, in this House, not of meeting argument by argument, but a simpler and more fruitful duty than that, the duty of cheering their leaders whenever they speak, and interrupting their opponents whenever they speak. Those are distinguished services which, I have no doubt, will one day meet with an adequate reward, not here below. Those are services which could not adequately be recognised on this terrestrial plane. Hon. Gentlemen must look for their reward to those celestial spheres where no doubt they will be recognised.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: On a point of Order. May I ask if it is possible for the hon. Member to talk about the subject which is in debate?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I was meditating rising, to ask the hon. Member to turn to the subject under discussion.

Mr. MOSLEY: I was led away by the sentiment of hon. Gentlemen opposite which they could not repress, so ardently were they animated by profoundly disinterested motives. But, if I may refer
to the subject to which I have devoted the whole of my remarks prior to the interruptions, I would ask the Government to state, if they can, what is the policy of the English Government. Having advanced an invitation to Germany, having elicited a response, having assumed responsibility for a new move in the international situation, what is the plan of the English Government? [HON. MEMBERS "British" and "No."] We have seen and suffered too long from the jeers and derision of people whose laughter plays the tune by which Europe marches to its destruction. A policy is often put forward from these benches which is received with jeers, laughs and boos from those benches. In a few weeks later there is acquiescence in precisely the same policy. On this occasion I ask the right hon. Gentleman to turn, if he can, to the traditions more worthy of this country and recover, if he can, in the councils of the nations some of those mighty ascents of English statesmanship which in the past thrilled the moral conscience of the world. [Interruption.] Despite the laughter of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I venture to refer to some of the great traditions of this country—traditions which have passed from the benches opposite and are now in the custody of hon. Members around me. I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite, before it is too late, to recapture some of the traditions of the nation, and to recognise that salvation will not be found in a policy of supine lethargy of dreary drift and despair. If they will do so, this country may once again save herself and save Europe by the greatness of her exertions.

Mr. R. McNEILL: The hon. Gentleman, who has just sat down, evidently made some excellent jests, which would, no doubt, have pleased us on this side as much as they pleased himself, had he only had the consideration for us to have made them audible.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then, what were you laughing at?

Mr. McNEILL: During the 6½ hours of Debate a great number of topics has, very naturally, been touched upon by a large number of right hon. and hon. Members. There has been one feature, which rather struck me as characteristic of the Debate.
There has been a great amount of criticism, some of it mild, some of it severe, coming from all sorts of angles. But the criticism has not, except indirectly, been criticism of His Majesty's Government. There have been ricochets which, no doubt, have hit us. The criticism began by attacking a body charged with the Government of the Saar Valley. Then there has been a good deal of criticism of the Council of the League of Nations, and there has been criticism of French policy and of the French Government. We came in only at second or third hand. For example, there was the attack upon the Governing Commission of the Saar Valley, which was the opening of the Debate by my right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir J. Simon). We have no representative upon that body; we are responsible only at second or third hand, through the Council of the League of Nations, upon which we have a representative. When I was listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who opened the Debate, I kept wondering when he was going to show our responsibility, and where it led. Even to this moment, after listening to all that has been said, both by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and others, and remembering that the right hon. and learned Gentleman began by moving a reduction of the Vote put from the Chair, I am wondering what is the precise issue upon which we are to have a Division in a few minutes, and what will be the exact line of division which will send some of us into the one Lobby and some into the other.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley more nearly than any other hon. Member struck a clear line of division, because, if I recollect aright, he said that this Government was culpable for this reason: that having had information of the character of the decree which has been so much criticised and which was passed by the Saar Valley Commission, we should have at once instructed our representative on the Council of the League of Nations, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, to go to the meeting of the Council and immediately, in the most vehement or at any rate in the most uncompromising manner, denounce that decree and demand its withdrawal. Therefore that is really our fault and that is what we are attacked
for—because we did not denounce that decree as uncompromisingly as the right hon. Gentleman did in the Committee and demand its withdrawal immediately. As regards the decree, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, in itself, the decree has no defender here and I am quite certain there is no one on this side any more than on the other, who would say that the decree on its merits was one which they would have any desire or capacity to defend in any connection whatever. But it does not quite follow from that that it would have been a wise thing, from any point of view, immediately to take the action which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley thinks we should have taken. The right hon. Gentleman said in the course of his speech that he regarded what has happened as a great blow to the prestige of the League of Nations and I think that view was rather accepted by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) whom I welcome back to the House. I am inclined to agree that the whole of what has happened and certainly the Debate which has taken place to-day will not add to the prestige of the League of Nations.
One thing which I would ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider seriously is whether, on the particular merits of this decree—a temporary decree, a decree for meeting a special set of circumstances in that area—our objections to that decree are necessarily so overwhelming that in order to express the feelings which this Government and this country must naturally feel about it and which we should express without hesitation if we were dealing with merely domestic affairs, it would have been worth while doing so at the price of levelling a blow which would be a most damaging blow, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to the prestige of the League of Nations. When we are talking about this decree surely we must examine, not merely the theory or the actual terms of that provision, but must also ask ourselves how it works. After all, that is the real point.
You may have a, decree which has in itself all the objectionable, indefensible, tyrannous provisions of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made so much, the House will remember—
describing the penalties which would be upon himself or any other critic of the Treaty of Versailles if he were to go, while this was in force, into the land where it has jurisdiction—but the practical question is, How has it worked? I was very much interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher), who speaks with much bigger knowledge upon this matter than most Members of the House, having been himself the British representative on the League of Nations, when he pointed out that, in point of actual practice, there has been a great deal of German propaganda in the Saar Valley—propaganda which it is quite intelligible should take place—that is very easy to understand—but still, which, in point of fact, must be an extremely difficult and even dangerous matter for the Governing Power, which is, after all, whether we like it or not, the Governing Power set up by the Treaty, and is bound to carry on under the conditions with which it has been charged. The right hon. Gentleman said there is much propaganda there, and he also said that there has been an immense amount of exaggeration with regard to the actual procedure of the French Administration in that province, and I think it is well that we should bear those facts in mind when we are discussing how far it would have been wise for us, under the circumstances, to have taken more vehement action than we did.
Of course, a discussion like this really raises a very large question as to what, and how, the League of Nations itself ought to work. The League of Nations has a Council, as we all know, on which the various Powers are represented, and one hon. Member—I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham (Captain Berkeley)—suggested that we ought to have selected instead of an occasional Minister like the late Minister of Education and the present Minister of Education, the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary to go as the representative of this country on the Council of the League of Nations. I have heard suggestions made, for which I think there is quite as much to be said, that our representative on the Council should not be a statesman or a politician at all, or at all events that he should be some distinguished citizen, someone, perhaps—although he is a statesman as well—like the right hon. Gentleman the late Education
Minister, who has great distinction apart altogether from politics, some person of that sort, who would be a permanent representative. I am not saying that that is my view; I am only saying that that is a view—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: How would Mabel Russell do?

Mr. McNEILL: A Debate of this sort raises all those sort of questions, and reminds us how very little has been decided in difficult matters like this. They are very grave questions, which will be discussed, no doubt, as time goes on. The right hon. Member for Paisley made two definite suggestions, and I think the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin agreed with him in saying that a special meeting of the Council ought now to be summoned in order to denounce the Decree. That is a very intelligible proposition, and a very definite one, but what possible confidence would this House have that, if the Council were called together to-morrow, it would denounce that Decree? The Council consists of England, France, Italy, Japan, Brazil, Uruguay, China, Spain, Sweden, and Belgium. If you were to call a meeting for the special ad hoc purpose which is suggested, it would surely be essential, to begin with, that you should have what we in this House call lobbying going on beforehand, you would have to find out how these votes were going to be given, unless you liked to take the chance, which would be certainly not a good chance, from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman, of—

Lord R. CECIL: I did not suggest that there should be a special meeting for that purpose. What I suggested was that a meeting should be called for another purpose, which, I said, might also consider the Saar question.

Mr. McNEILL: I think that what. I am going to say will apply equally to that. What I am afraid of is this: You are bound to form those into groups, or, on the other hand, you might possibly get a majority of States who would take your view. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are never tired of talking of the time when everything will be done by international agreement, when all difficulties are to be solved by international conferences; but the moment you get into a conference, even so small as the Council of the League of
Nations, this House and many Members of it are never content with that conference unless we get our own way. I believe that in this Council of the League of Nations and other international conferences we shall have to reconcile ourselves with the position of finding ourselves very often in the minority. When we get into these Conferences we may meet people who do not share our views. It is an unfortunate thing, perhaps, for us that we have to reconcile ourselves to seeing a great deal done against which we would make futile resistance. If the League of Nations is not to be wrecked, I say the less we talk in our Parliament, and to our representatives there, the better. If we are always insisting upon having our own way and denouncing everything done with which we do not agree, we shall very soon wreck the League of Nations.
Let me just repeat in the few moments left to me the actual proposals that the Government have made under the circumstances. It does not seem a very drastic procedure. I do not know enough to venture upon any optimistic forecast as to what it may bring; at all events, it does seem to me to be under the circumstances all that we can expect to do. We want to get the League of Nations to send representatives—not those whom we send to sit on the Council—but other representatives who shall go into the Saar and hold an independent inquiry into the actual conditions there in regard to Administration, and to report to the League of Nations. The reason for that is, as several hon. Members have said, that the Council of the League of Nations itself does not get—is not able to get—full, proper, and impartial information as to what is going on If we get an inquiry of that sort I do believe we should, at all events feel in a very much better position than to-day to criticise the Council of the League, and possibly give some further instructions to our representatives.
In this Debate this matter of the Saar has been very much mixed up with the larger question of the Ruhr. Even if I had time—which I have not—all I should have said to-night is—as hon. Members know—that at the present moment we are preparing to send our reply to the German Note. Therefore, it would not have been right to say anything on the subject of the Ruhr and Reparations. All
I can say is that I believe that when the reply we send to Germany is made public, a great many of those who have to-night criticised the Government by anticipation, will find that they are really not so dissatisfied as they might have thought. But I may say that the bedrock of our policy—and I say this for the satisfaction of some who have spoken from both sides of the House—the bedrock of our policy was described only a week ago in the House of Lords by Lord Curzon. He said that the bedrock of our policy remained the maintenance of

our alliance with France; apart from that he could see no prospect of peace in Europe; that the Entente was the one stable structure in the world of flux. I hope that whatever comes we shall maintain that alliance, even though from time to time we may have causes for dissatisfaction and disagreement such as have recently occurred.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceding £113,607, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 238.

Division No. 145.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adams, D.
Grigg, Sir Edward
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Groves, T.
Newbold, J. T. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)
O'Grady, Captain James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield. Hillsbro')
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Oliver, George Harold


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Attlee, C. R.
Harbord, Arthur
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hardie, George D.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Barnes, A.
Harris, Percy A.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
[...]rtshorn, Vernon
Price, E. G.


Batey, Joseph
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Richards, R.


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hemmerde, E. G.
Ritson, J.


Bonwick, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Herriotts, J.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Briant, Frank
Hill, A.
Royce, William Stapleton


Brotherton, J.
Hinds, John
Salter, Dr. A.


Buckie, J.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Scrymgeour, E.


Burgess, S.
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cairns, John
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Simpson, J. Hope


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Chapple, W. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Spoor, B. G.


Darbishire, C. W.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lansbury, George
Warne, G. H.


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
Leach, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Ede, James Chuter
Lee, F.
Webb, Sidney


Edge, Captain Sir William
Lees-Smith, K. B. (Keighley)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Edmonds, G.
Linfield, F. C.
Weir, L. M.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lowth, T.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
M'Entee, V. L.
Whiteley, W.


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Fairbairn, R. R.
Maxton, James
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Falconer, J.
Middleton, G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Millar, J. D.
Wintringham, Margaret


Foot, Isaac
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Gosling, Harry
Morel, E. D.
Wright, W.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Greenall, T.
Mosley, Oswald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Muir, John W.
Mr. Phillips and Sir A. Marshall.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murnin, H.



NOES.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Becker, Harry


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Banks, Mitchell
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Betterton, Henry B.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Barnett, Major Richard W.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Barnston, Major Harry
Blundell, F. N.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Brass, Captain W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Paget, T. G.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Penny, Frederick George


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Halstead, Major D.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Aitrincham)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perring, William George


Bruford, R.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Peto, Basil E.


Bruton, Sir James
Harrison, F. C.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hawke, John Anthony
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Butcher, Sir John George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Rentoul, G. S.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rothschild, Lionel de


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Houfton, John Plowright
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Clayton, G. C.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hughes, Collingwood
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hume, G. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Cope, Major William
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Sandon, Lord


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Jephcott, A. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Singleton, J. E.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Skelton, A. N.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sparkes, H. W.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lorden, John William
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Ellis, R. G.
Lort-Williams, J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lougher, L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfred H.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Falcon, Captain Michael
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Manville, Edward
Tubbs, S. W.


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Mercer, Colonel H.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Foreman, Sir Henry
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Wells, S. R.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Whitla, Sir William


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Winterton, Earl


Furness, G. J.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wise, Frederick


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Wolmer, Viscount


Ganzoni, Sir John
Murchison, C. K.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Gates, Percy
Nall, Major Joseph
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Greaves-Lord, Walter
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson



Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Gibbs.


Gretton, Colonel John
Nield, Sir Herbert



Resolution agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

FORESTRY (TRANSFER OF WOODS). [CONSOLIDATED FUND.]

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to authorise the charge on, and payment out of, the Consolidated Fund, or the grooving produce thereof to the land revenue of the Crown, of compensation for any transfer of the
rights and interests of the Crown under any Act of the present Session for the transfer of certain properties to the Forestry Commission and to amend the Forestry Act, 1919, and for purposes in connection therewith.

INDIAN AFFAIRS.

Ordered, "That Mr. Hope Simpson and Mr. Trevelyan be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Indian Affairs.

Ordered, That Mr. Charles Roberts and Mr. Spoor be added to the Committee."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

NATIONALITY OF MARRIED WOMEN.

Ordered, "That Sir Henry Norman be discharged from the Joint Committee on Nationality of Married Women.

Ordered, That Colonel Maurice Alexander be added to the Committee."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

DEPORTATIONS TO IRELAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Mr. DUNNICO: I desire to crave the indulgence of the House to call attention to one or two serious and grave charges made by some of the Irish deportees. It is not my intention to raise the political or legal aspects of the case. I want rather to confine myself to certain charges as to treatment and conditions. I wish to take one particular case, which is fairly illustrative of a number of other cases. The particular case I wish to raise is that of a lady named Sarah Macdermott. She was arrested on the 11th March last and deported to Ireland. This lady, for more than 15 years, has been a teacher in one of the London schools, and is very highly respected, and all those who have any knowledge of her speak of her in the highest terms. On the 16th March, and subsequently on the 24th March, this lady applied to appear before the Advisory Committee. Although it is now the 10th May, and more than two months have elapsed, she has not yet been allowed to
present her case to the Advisory Committee. That long delay is a gross violation of the solemn pledges and assurances given by the Home Secretary to the House two months ago. I am prepared to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that this lady is now being brought to this country to appear before the Advisory Committee, and it is possible that she is in this country at the present moment; but that is no answer to my charge that there has been undue delay, which is not in keeping with the pledges given.
These deportees are, surely, entitled to fair play. They are brought over to this country in secrecy and by stealth. They are not allowed to communicate in any way with their friends; even their place of imprisonment is kept secret. They are not allowed to consult their friends or obtain legal advice. They are rushed before the Advisory Committee. No statement has ever been given to them of the charges of which they are accused. They are suddenly presented with these charges, and I submit that it is not in keeping with British justice or the sense of fair play that these people should suddenly be presented with charges to which, on the spur of the moment, some of us who are not, perhaps, so nervous, would find some difficulty in putting up a proper case in reply.
I ask the Home Secretary to give us, first of all, a definite and solemn pledge that, in all these cases where applications are made to appear before the Advisory Committee, they shall be dealt with without any delay at all. Secondly, I ask if he will see to it that these deportees are supplied with a written copy of the definite charges made against them. The charges against them are, on the confession of my right hon. Friend, made verbally. They are vague and indefinite. How can these men and women defend themselves, as they ought, unless they have in writing the definite specific charges made against them?
I now turn to the conditions and treatment to which these deportees are being subjected. I take again the case of Miss Macdermott, because it is typical of others. On the 26th April, I believe it was, she was being removed from Mountjoy prison to some other institution. A number of women were told off to search her. She resented being searched and stripped, and the result was that she was
knocked to the ground by four women, an attendant more than six feet high came in and sat upon her, the four women beat her from head to foot with her boots, which they had taken off, she was partially stripped, taken into a corner, hurt severely until she became unconscious, and, when she regained consciousness, she found herself outside, almost undressed, drenched with water, and surrounded by soldiers, against whom she makes a charge of insobriety. I know the defence which is being set up, but this woman is prepared to bring any number of witnesses to substantiate her statement, and to swear an oath an affidavit as to the accuracy of these statements. The defence put up by the right hon. Gentleman, which has been very kindly supplied to me, suggests that this woman attacked the warders. I have in my hands letters from clergy of the leading churches in London and a medical man of high standing who has known this lady for fifteen years, and they say it is absolutely inconceivable and incredible that she could attempt to do this thing; and, if she did, she is so delicate and fragile that it did not need men to keep her under proper control. I have also a letter which reached me yesterday from a well-known lady, who has just been released from Mountjoy Prison. She has seen Miss Macdermott, and only four days ago that lady bore on her face the imprint of the nails of the shoe with which she had been beaten. That lady is Miss Macardle, the daughter of Sir Thomas Macardle, and she saw Miss Maedermott, before she was released from the prison, as recently as 5th May.
have tried to state the case without any feeling. I have tried to use language as restrained as possible, and have refrained from discussing either the political or the legal aspects of the case. But I am very jealous of the traditional liberties of the British people, and when the right hon. Gentleman comes to the House and gives us a definite assurance of a certain character, he is in honour bound to do his utmost to see that those obligations are fulfilled and those promises carried out. I am willing to admit that he may have been very badly let down by those who have given him these assurances. I am willing to admit that he may have had bad legal advice given to him, as I am convinced that he himself would not
tolerate these things. I believe that there is ample evidence to substantiate the statement I have made because I have a list of the names of people of high standing who have been subject to the same brutality by these very same people. All I ask is first of all that he will give these people a fair opportunity of appearing before the Advisory Committee, that they shall appear under fair and proper conditions, and that during their detention he will see to it as far as he can that they are given proper treatment, and are not subjected to this brutality. This is the first time I have ever trespassed upon attention, and I should not have done so upon this occasion except that I am moved by a strong sense of public duty, a high sense of conscience, a great love of country, and because I am anxious that its honour should not be besmirched.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): I certainly cannot complain of the tone adopted by the hon. Member in bringing this case forward although I think he has done it on information which is very far from correct. I regret the delay with regard to the hearing of this appeal very much. As a matter of fact, I only received a letter from this lady asking for leave to appear before the Advisory Committee, on the 4th of this month. In that letter she referred to a previous letter on 12th March which I have never seen and which has never reached this country. I have inquired, but I cannot discover what happened to it. I regret that delay should have occurred. I did my best, as soon as I got the letter, to accelerate her release in order that she might appear before the Advisory Committee, and she was to have come over to-day to appear before the Committee to-morrow, but I now hear that she has refused to come. That is the position so far as that goes.
I am quite prepared to give the undertaking for which the hon. Member asked, that I will do everything, as I always have done, to facilitate the hearing of the cases of those who wish to appeal to the Advisory Committee; but I am not prepared to dictate to the Advisory Committee as to their procedure in these matters. I must say, with regard to the charges which have been made by the hon. Gentleman against the Free State authorities, that my report from the Free State Government entirely contradicts
those charges. They have made an exhaustive investigation into the matter, an investigation carried out by General Mulcahy, and their story is a totally different story from the one given by the hon. Gentleman. Their story is that when three or four female internees were to be removed to other quarters which, they thought, would be more suitable, the women had to go through the usual process of being searched. This lady went into a room where she was to be searched by four or five other women. She announced at once that she would not be searched, and proceeded to attack one of the women whose duty it was to search her. She seized her by the hair, threw her to the ground, and proceeded to dash her head against the ground until the woman warder became unconscious. She then became so violent, and was kicking so much that she could not be controlled by the women, and a male warder was called in to separate her from the woman she was attacking, and to get her away. Otherwise, the woman she was attacking was in great danger of being killed. The male warder came in and released her hold, and her boots were taken off, as she was kicking violently. She not only rendered the woman warder unconscious, but bit her, and bit another of the women warders. After that, she appeared to become rather exhausted with her exertions and seemed likely to faint: I think she actually fainted. Then the not unusual practice was resorted to of dashing some
water in her face. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not unusual!"] It is the usual way of restoring people who have fainted.

Dr. SALTER: What about putting a key down the back?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: She was not stripped at all, although the results of her efforts in attacking these other women no doubt exhausted her a great deal, and caused a certain amount of bruising. The bruising has now disappeared, and the doctor says that she is all right. But the Free State have no objection to our sending a doctor over from London to make an independent medical examination, and promise that they will give facilities if required. That does not look as if they feared an examination, and goes a long, way to corroborate their report.

Mr. DUNNICO: That was three weeks afterwards.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We cannot discuss the legal aspect of the opinion, as it is now sub judiee, and I would deprecate these criticisms of the Free State Government who, I am certain, are doing their best, and I know that Mr. Cosgrave has taken great pains to see that matters are—

It being Half-past Eleven o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question, put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.